Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: whels on November 01, 2004, 10:11:22 AM
-
ki84
tested off line.
315 mph OTD? man thats slow and no WEP
barely faster then hurricane1
-
Seems slow to me also.
But there was a HUGE varience in reported speeds between prototypes & production models.
-
That's too slow. There's got to be an error. That is slower than the N1K2-J despite being more streamlined with a more powerful version of the engine. That's slower than the prototypes, let alone the production models.
-
guessing its not a perk ride then :)
-
Should do 324 on the deck.
-
Sounds like Spit fodder to me. :D
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Yeah seems slow, but you gotta love the ghost operated joystick and rudders inside the cockpit. It might even have some usefulness in training others on certain maneuvers.
-
I just tested this 314mph OTD and no WEP is available at all... Fuel was 100%.
-
Originally posted by Pyro
Should do 324 on the deck.
Well dang.
There goes that idea.
I was hoping for a fun aircraft that would be usable in the MA, but it seems not.
Way too slow.
-
Did the prototypes have WEP? Just asking, I really don't know.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I just tested this 314mph OTD and no WEP is available at all... Fuel was 100%.
Hmm, I'll take a look and see what's going wrong.
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Sounds like Spit fodder to me. :D
-- Todd/Leviathn
Is there ANYTHING that isn't Spit fodder for you?? :lol
-
wow....all i can say is its a purly mediocre piece of airplane...flew 1 hop and got my prettythang waxed by a spit of some flavor. Truthfully guy flew a bad merge and if I was in a Ki-61 or -1 hog he'd of been toast. however even with a bad merge in my favor he sucked the E right out of me...after 3 semi vertical "loops" I had to give up all angles to save the plane as it "flipped" on me. Completely underpowered compared to Ki-61 with worse handling and quicker departure...I'm sure it'll be a big winner in the 39-41 segment of the RPS....as for competing where it belongs....cannon fodder at best...has no chance against a well flown P40B IMO....
-
To be honest, my account was riding on this, so I am rather disappointed by the extremely poor performance that HTC picked for the Ki-84. With that speed I don't see how it can be anything but a poorer armed N1K2-J.
The MA demands a reasonably fast airplane with fuel range now and the P-51 just doesn't do anything for me. The prevalence of extremely fast late war aircraft really is pushing me to either start flying the La-7, which I hate, or leave. I was hoping that the Ki-84 would be fast enough to cut some of the edge off the La-7 while still being fun to fly. That is not to be.
I'll try it out tonight, but it doesn't look good for the future of my account.
-
you guys just got this plane, got to get used to it before you can really compare it,
have all of you perfected flying it in less than an hour and a half?
:D
-
Originally posted by TequilaChaser
you guys just got this plane, got to get used to it before you can really compare it,
have all of you perfected flying it in less than an hour and a half?
:D
It has nothing to do with that. It has to do with the fact they they've modeled it as being no faster than the N1K2-J.
Why should I even worry about it at this point as it does nothing to mitigate the problems I have been having with AH2? Speed is so very required that my preffered ride is now a slow assed death trap and I was looking for an upgrade. At 324mph the Ki-84 is not it, no matter how well in handles.
-
Crap, found the problem. It's not making full power. Argh.
-
Feels like the 152 release all over again, this 84 is pretty underwhelming, besides the flapped maneuvering.
Yeah Pyro :D was having a go with it and watching the airspeed needle as it dove and zoomed I thought something was amiss with either it or my brain :)
"wtf.... 375mph for just that long??" hehe
-
""Crap, found the problem. It's not making full power. Argh. --Pyro"
followed three posts later by......
The Ki84 should be the scourge of the skies, faster than a pony at all altitudes. If what I'm reading is true then I guess the allied aircraft being favored theory holds up yet again. Do we still have the rediculous auto retracting flaps in all aircraft?? --- Storch"
Too late!
You're such a stump. I can't let you walk away from yet another stupendous display of putting your foot in your mouth.
-
Karnak, what were expecting for a max deck speed for the Ki.84?
I don't have specs that go into that much detail.
Anyone try to find it's max speed at alt? I take it everyone's fears/hopes of a 400+ mph Hayate are dashed, and it may not even reach the 388-392 mph range?
Pyro did suggest something is amiss, so I'm anxious to see the result of his digging.
Curious about the lack of WEP though. I thought that deficiency was limited to bombers and very early War fighters.
It's guns seemed potent to me, and the fowler flap animation is cool. As is the default skin. Lots of things to like about it, but we really need a fast Japanese plane that can compete in the MA. Ki.84 was our best shot. Hope its a fluke that gets corrected.
-
The captured Wright Field example did 363 mph at sea level. Now it used higher octane fuel, but...
Would that generate a full 40 mph difference? It seems as if the worst data set was chosen here, and one that is hard to extrapolate with the Wright Field tests even if it was the best made, most polished Ki-84 of the war.
Charon
-
Originally posted by oboe
Curious about the lack of WEP though. I thought that deficiency was limited to bombers and very early War fighters.
Just a guess here - but in AH if you arent at full throttle wep doesn't work. Given what pyro typed I am thinking that is why no useable wep (yet).
-
Good thought Zanth. You're probably right.
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Sounds like Spit fodder to me. :D
-- Todd/Leviathn
Bastid!:rofl
Drano
-
Karnak.
dont be a weenie. Wing up and lets kill some puppies.
-
At 20.3k it was doing 369mph. Yeah I had to test it :) so 388 'may' be possible....
-
Oboe,
I was hoping that it would be faster than the Mosquito.
Pongo,
We'll see. I'll be home around 5:30 PST and will download it then. Hopefully a quick patch will be out as well to give it HTC's intended performance.
I am disapointed that it seems to be based on the performance of the first prototype which was not representative of the production Ki-84s at all.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
To be honest, my account was riding on this, so I am rather disappointed by the extremely poor performance that HTC picked for the Ki-84. With that speed I don't see how it can be anything but a poorer armed N1K2-J.
The MA demands a reasonably fast airplane with fuel range now and the P-51 just doesn't do anything for me. The prevalence of extremely fast late war aircraft really is pushing me to either start flying the La-7, which I hate, or leave. I was hoping that the Ki-84 would be fast enough to cut some of the edge off the La-7 while still being fun to fly. That is not to be.
I'll try it out tonight, but it doesn't look good for the future of my account.
So HTC should just model a plane's performance on what you think it should be so that you'll keep your account? See ya...
Bazi
-
Originally posted by TequilaChaser
you guys just got this plane, got to get used to it before you can really compare it,
have all of you perfected flying it in less than an hour and a half?
:D
TC....
I've been around for long enough to have a feel for what a plane can do...I hopped into the Ki-61 cold and flew it for most of the last couple weeks. I'm certainly not an uberstick but I'm good enough to handle just about everybody I ran across in anything less than a gangbang (with a few notable exceptions:))...obviously you wont get dialed in immediately but this plane is underpowered and has modest handling at best. It's clearly inferior to the Ki-61/205/F6F. Truthfully its inferior to the P40-b IMO and the 202 will eat it alive accept for hitting power. I'd say its about even with the a2 zeke but with much worse handling...
-
obviously if it's not generating full power things might change a bit. As for low speed handling...even with flaps I didnt get any feel that it was even on par with Ki-61 or F6 let alone a spit or nikki....hopefully better power curve will help things out...
-
Originally posted by Wurger
So HTC should just model a plane's performance on what you think it should be so that you'll keep your account? See ya...
Bazi
No. HTC should model it how they think it should be modeled. That my account is dependant on its modeling is not their responsibility and is solely up to me.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
That my account is dependant on its modeling is not their responsibility and is solely up to me.
Exactly my point, so why mention it...
Bazi
-
Karnak. that is the begining of the fun not the end of it.
-
Top speed is 388, except for the fact that it's not making full power right now.
The WEP issue is a confusing one. Busa has been doing a lot of research for me over in Japan on the N1K and also the Ki-84. It's not very clear-cut as the engine had various restrictions placed upon it at various times and the IJA and IJN did not treat the engines the same. His research leaned toward the Ki-84 not making use of WEP while the N1K did, but again, it is not a clear-cut situation and is the source of much debate.
-
So HTC should just model a plane's performance on what you think it should be so that you'll keep your account? See ya...
With the Ki-84 there are several choices they could make, since the data is generally lacking. They have picked the worst data set (or one of them) to use for the model.
Again, for all of its differences to oeprational standards, the Wright Field testing was detailed and generated some hard numbers with a production aircraft. It should be excessive compared to the war time average performance, but if you can't logically account for the HUGE 40 mph difference then this choice is questionable.
The same goes for the427 mph at 20,000 feet. (at a weight of 7490 pounds). It sounds like another 40+mph difference. If the weight variables or octane variable can't reasonably account for that, then the data set needs to be reconsidered.
It's not like we were expecting it to out turn a zero and out run a la-7. It would be nice to hear from Pyro why this was selected.
[edit: see Pyro replied while I was typing. Why 388, how can you account for the dramatic difference compared to WF? even with higher octane fuel?]
Charon
-
Originally posted by Charon
The captured Wright Field example did 363 mph at sea level. Now it used higher octane fuel, but...
Would that generate a full 40 mph difference? It seems as if the worst data set was chosen here, and one that is hard to extrapolate with the Wright Field tests even if it was the best made, most polished Ki-84 of the war.
No, that would not have made it 40mph faster. Maybe 20mph faster, at the outside.
Keep in mind that the reason it was being tested with 100 octane was to try to simulate the MW50 injection that they didn't have, but that the Japanese used operationally. That is how I understand it anyways.
-
I'm a bit curious about the Ki-84 and whats realistic. A brief search on the web brought up a bunch of "performance" blurbs and I copied 1 that seemed middle of the road....
I]No Japanese fighter aircraft had a better all-round performance than the Ki-84. As far as protection goes, the Ki-84 had seat back and head armour of 12 mm steel, and self-sealing fuel tanks. The self-sealing tanks were not considered as efficient as those fitted to American aircraft at the time. [/I]
The Ki-84 was not clearly superior to any of the Allied fighter aircraft opposing it. In perfect running order it was perhaps the equal of any allied fighter at 20,000 feet or below. A good pilot would be able to take advantage of its excellent turning, climbing and acceleration characteristics to at least give an allied opponent a hard fight.
Hopefully once we get a patch on the power issues we'll see a plane that comes closer to this....
-
The SL speed for this variant is 324. The WF variant is 363 (from what I can find). That's 39 mph, unless the figures I came across are 20 mph too high. I would expect a reasonable RL performance (if those figures are accurate) to be around 340-350 SL with lower octane fuel, etc.
Maybe I'm wrong, but some of the fuel octane threads I've seen in the aircraft forum lead me to believe octane only gets you so much.
[edit: I though you were disagreeing with the 40 mph difference Karnak, I think you were just pointing out the logical 20 mph RL difference you could expect.]
Charon
-
At 324mph at SL and 388mph at best altitude the AH Ki-84 seems to be directly modeled on the first prototype.
The first prototype was powered by an Ha-45-11 engine, which was less powerful than the Ha-45-21 engine that powered the production model.
The first prototype lacked the ejector exhaust stubs that were introduced in the preproduction aircraft and were present in the production aircraft.
The production models were cleaned up areodynamically when compared to the first prototypes.
The third prototype did 392mph at best altitude and it too lacked most of the production changes.
As it stands, based on what I know of the Ki-84, the AH Ki-84 would be semiappropriate as a 1943 Ki-84 used in service trials, not a 1944 service Ki-84.
-
I'm more confused by the handling than the speed issues. Normally even in a Ki-61 or similiar plane I'm almost never flying at full power during a fight. So I was awful suprised how quickly it ran out of smash in what should of been a very favorable set up for it. Guess I'll fool with it a bit more tonight...but realistically probably just go hunt 84's in my 61:aok
-
I am kinda surprised about the coice to model the Ki84 at 324/388 since it seems that it has been demonstarated on this board that this was the performonce of a rough and unfinished prototype with a weaker engine and lacking some important gear like the speed enhancing ejector exhausts.
So from my view we have two hard data sets that probably set the boundaries but are IMO most likely not fully representative of in-service planes.
324/388 for the rough first development prototype.
and
363/427 for a well treated/pampered production plane with US 100 octane fuel fuel.
I'm curious why was the low figure chosen? Why not shoot for a happy medium?
Also what of this mention of MW50? Did Ki84 mount this system? Would the 100 octane gas approximate the anti detonation properties of low octane gas and MW50 running at higher boost?
-
Originally posted by humble
Guess I'll fool with it a bit more tonight...but realistically probably just go hunt 84's in my 61:aok
Been playing around with the Frank, it will easily beat the Tony in the vert.
-
Originally posted by Montezuma
Been playing around with the Frank, it will easily beat the Tony in the vert.
And the Tony is absolute crap in the verticle as modeled in AH2.
I'm not happy.
-
Originally posted by Montezuma
Been playing around with the Frank, it will easily beat the Tony in the vert.
Not a chance in the world....
-
Guys,
wait for the patch...let's see how the plane flies after the fix.
But, look at it this way...
...this is the first version of the Hayate. perhaps, HTC could find it in their kind hearts to add a second variant with a little more balls. :)
I, too, was expecting more of a rocket.
I was also expecting it to break apart in a high-speed dive, & we got that! :lol Elevators blew right off (didn't notice the speed, but it was fast).
-
So now I need to start begging for a Ki-84-I-Otsu modeled to 1944 standards?
I'm burned out.
-
Anybody tried "Combat" flaps on Ki-84? I think the speed at which you can deploy first notch is kinda low...
EDIT:
MGs having same fire rate as cannons????
-
I flew the Ki-84 offline... the ROF for the cannons seems kind of slow in my opinion. If they are the same guns as the ones on the Ki-61, they should be just about the fastest firing guns in the game. They seem pretty average to me, and they are mounted outside the prop I believe (as opposed the the Ki-61s).
-
Originally posted by Pyro
Crap, found the problem. It's not making full power. Argh.
Pyro...Woah...You modelled it too realistic!!! :D
Golly-geen it, please give me fine 2000hp engine! ;)
-
Looks like we're stuck with the 1800hp engine and no exhaust stubs, Mitsu.
-
btw, why didn't pyro select another prototype Ki-84's test data?
(631km/h at the same alt, pilot was funabashi)
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I am kinda surprised about the coice to model the Ki84 at 324/388 since it seems that it has been demonstarated on this board that this was the performonce of a rough and unfinished prototype with a weaker engine and lacking some important gear like the speed enhancing ejector exhausts.
So from my view we have two hard data sets that probably set the boundaries but are IMO most likely not fully representative of in-service planes.
324/388 for the rough first development prototype.
and
363/427 for a well treated/pampered production plane with US 100 octane fuel fuel.
I'm curious why was the low figure chosen? Why not shoot for a happy medium?
Also what of this mention of MW50? Did Ki84 mount this system? Would the 100 octane gas approximate the anti detonation properties of low octane gas and MW50 running at higher boost?
I can guarantee that there would be whining no matter what performance specs were used for the Ki84...
Bazi
-
Flame bait
-
"what we have here is plainly that no axis ride will ever be modelled faithfully if it is superior in performance to an allied model. hence the flap BS and so forth. They don't feel like modelling them properly and they won't. If we can't play be their terms then we must seek entertainment elsewhere. Storch"
It must be a conspiracy!
-
Originally posted by Westy
It must be a conspiracy!
Quick! Someone call Michael Moore! :D
Bazi
-
Originally posted by Mitsu
btw, why didn't pyro select another prototype Ki-84's test data?
(631km/h at the same alt, pilot was funabashi)
Pardon my ignorance but what would that convert to in mph?
-
your prolly right Michael :rolleyes:
aren't you guys able to be happy with what you get? :eek: :rolleyes:
-
Wurger,
I'll guess from your name that you prefer German rides. This is like having the Fw190D-9 modeled with a top SL speed of 350mph, and you expect us to shut up and fly when we think it is very, very wrong? I'll bet you be giving us an earful if your fighter was way undermodeled.
You don't care about the Ki-84 so take a hike.
-
I'm still a bit baffled by the handling, all in all you've got a plane thats clearly inferior to the 205 (among others). Certainly doesnt seem to be competitive in the late war period at all. My only prior experience is in AW...the Ki easily outperformed the nikki and spitfire but was a bit slower than the pony. All in all the F6F ought to eat it up...somehow doesnt seem right....
-
humble,
I'd hold off judgment until it gets fixed, but based on what Pyro has said it should be clearly inferior to the N1K2-J, F6F-5 and all other 1943+ American fighters.
I really don't understand why HTC used the numbers off of the first prototype for the Ki-84. Essentially, if this flight model is accurate, the Ki-84 had a absolutely monstously overblown reputaion and the whole "Forget about it, it's a Frank." stuff was baloney.
I just can't understand how the N1K2-J is as fast despite having a less powerful engine and being less streamlined.
The perfromance is well below my lowest expectations, which would have been about 340mph at SL and 392mph at best altitude.
-
Lets everyone cut the cospiracy crap... Its just retarted from both sides...
-
Karnak,
It's not the speed (which seems low)...it's the pitiful overall performance compared to other similiar planes. Obviously I'm basing this on one flight, but it just bled out E wise vs a poorly flown spitty. I'd of been better of in a P40-B...in a Ki or F6F I'd of eaten the spitty up. I expected the Frank to handle on par with the spitty or even a touch better than the spit IX. Certainly as well as the F6F....didnt seem to be even close to me.
On a seperate "topic" I've seen various mentions of MW-50 or such...I thought this was the "WEP" for the 190. If in fact the Ki-84 had MW-50 isnt that WEP...I thought it was carried in a seperate tank and added as needed for additional performance???
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Lets everyone cut the cospiracy crap... Its just retarted from both sides...
I agree. It isn't a conspiracy. There are multiple Allied rides that also seem to be on the low end of their performance specs.
However I am very confused about the Ki-84. It kinda feels like a kid who expected a bike under the tree for Christmas and found underwear.:p
-
Originally posted by Karnak
However I am very confused about the Ki-84. It kinda feels like a kid who expected a bike under the tree for Christmas and found underwear.:p
more like hoping for lance armstrongs bike, expecting something reasonably good, and getting a CCM...
-
388mph and no water methanol....
WOW!!! :eek:
At least we know it won't be perked.
Can anyone here post the power settings from the clipboard?
-
Pyro already commented that he had found the reason for the lower than expected performance, yet we still see folks commenting as if they are seeing the final product.
I would expect to see a patch from Pyro and an attending explanation sometime tonight, or early tomorrow morning.
I too was looking forward to seeing the Ki84, as I had a blast with it in Brand W, but who is gonna quibble over 4 mph (388 vs 392mph)?
As an aside, I too am surprised at the mention of no WEP, but Pyro addressed that also with his comment that Busa is looking into it as we speak.
Be patient..........we'll get that Nipponese superplane you all crave.......:p
-
Originally posted by Wotan
388mph and no water methanol....
WOW!!! :eek:
Worse, it is exactly the same speed as the N1K2-J at SL, 324mph.
:(
-
Originally posted by Wotan
Can anyone here post the power settings from the clipboard?
Military: 2900rpm @ 250mm manifold
Normal: 2650rpm @ 100mm manifold
-
Ok check news, patch out.
ed: aren't we all glad it didn't come out Friday afternoon when we'd have had to fly our neutered Ki all weekend?
-
Originally posted by eddiek
Pyro already commented that he had found the reason for the lower than expected performance, yet we still see folks commenting as if they are seeing the final product.
I would expect to see a patch from Pyro and an attending explanation sometime tonight, or early tomorrow morning.
I too was looking forward to seeing the Ki84, as I had a blast with it in Brand W, but who is gonna quibble over 4 mph (388 vs 392mph)?
As an aside, I too am surprised at the mention of no WEP, but Pyro addressed that also with his comment that Busa is looking into it as we speak.
Be patient..........we'll get that Nipponese superplane you all crave.......:p
No we won't. All the numbers I've been refering to are Pyro's intended numbers, not the numbers it actually hits.
It is useless as it is. It brings absolutely no balance to late war Pac setups and is far, far inferior to the N1K2-J for MA purposes when using Pyros numbers.
As to the speed at altitude, who cares. 388mph or 427mph makes no difference as that isn't where the fighting takes place. The speed that matters on all aircraft is the speed at SL and 324mph does absolutely nothing in the MA. It is a joke.
I am frankly in utter disbelief about the performance numbers chosen by HTC. I didn't expect 363mph and 427mph and would have agreed with anybody saying those were too high. However it is absurd to use the performance numbers on the first prototype from early 1943 as the basis of the performance of the Ki-84 with many improvments and a more powerful engine from mid-1944.
-
Full power bug is fixed in Patch 1.
But still NO WEP.
The Ki-84 had Emergency (1 min) Power at 3000rpm/400mm(350mm?).
plane has over boost setting. NO WEP is weird...
Anyway, we need to discuss about this.
-
New deck top speed is 323mph with 100% fuel.
-
i would like to see the poor quailty of the late war japanese aircraft engines modeled, go full throttle and you just might puke your engine.
-
The 388 mph (624 kph) figure is for "standard maximum speed" at +250 boost.
The same manual gives the aircraft's take off boost as +400mm.
Clearly the Type 4 fighter could fly faster than 388 mph if the pilot increased power above +250. The question then becomes, how much faster. The manual doesn't answer that question.
AIREVIEW's General View of Japanese Military Aircraft In ThePacific War, Vol.1,pg.320:
Ha-45/11 NK9-B(IJN-nomenclature)
HP(T.O.): 1,800 @ 400mmHg & 2,900rpm
HP(2,000m/6,562-ft): 1,650 @ 250mmHg & same-rpm
HP(5,700m/18,701-ft): 1,460 @ 250mmHg & same-rpm
So the AH2 Ki-84 can't go above 250mmHg even on take off?
-
Originally posted by john9001
i would like to see the poor quailty of the late war japanese aircraft engines modeled, go full throttle and you just might puke your engine.
Can I have P-40 and F4F engines puking all over the place in the early war too?
What? That's not OK?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
New deck top speed is 323mph with 100% fuel.
:(
I just don't understand why it was modeled with an Ha-45-11 engine and no exhaust stubs.
:(
We got an early 1943 Ki-84.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Can I have P-40 and F4F engines puking all over the place in the early war too?
What? That's not OK?
Karnak, you're a bit too hot. he's fisher.
-
50% gas, 1:1 burn, full power, 10k:
310 IAS 366 TAS
dunno if this is "wrong" but that's what the #'s are at 10k.
it took some time to get from 301 to 310 ias, didn't time it exactly, but a couple minutes for sure.
-
(http://park1.wakwak.com/~mitsu/ki84_speed1.jpg)
(http://park1.wakwak.com/~mitsu/ki84_speed2.jpg)
HA45-SP means HA-45-Toku (Special in English), aka HA-45-11.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
New deck top speed is 323mph with 100% fuel.
same here Grun, but i used 25% fuel.
whels
-
Karnak.
If you really expected a Ha-45/21 engined Ki-84 with water methanol then you set yourself up for huge dissappointment. We all hoped for it but the Ha45/11 numbers are easier to come by.
However, even the 250mmHg on the Ha-45/11 was not 'top boost'. Take off power is 450mmHg.
Mitsu nice graph but 'no Ha-45/21 for you!!!'...
How about 100 check 6 calls instead :p
-
The disappointment I'm feeling is pretty crushing.
I was really counting on a good Ki-84 to keep me in the game.
I just don't know. The Mosquito is horribly outclassed and has become a huge frusteration to fly, but it seems like it is significantly better than the Ki-84.
I can't fly the Mosquito anymore.
The Ki-84 is not the answer I hoped it would be. Not even a shadow of the answer.
I just hate the idea of being forced into a effing P-51D or La-7. I wanted a new fighter to play with, but speed is such an absolutely dominating issue in AH that a fighter with a top speed of 323mph is not even close to viable, particularly given the other handiling issue humble is saying it has. If the Hellcat is both much faster and much better handling the Ki-84 is DOA.
I just can't think of a solution, so it seems that I will probably be leaving sometime this week.:(
I'll try the new version tonight, but....
EDIT,
Wotan,
I was expecting about 345mph on the deck and 392mph at best altitude.
I just can't understand how the N1K2-J can be modeled to be as fast as the Ki-84. This just doesn't make any sense to me.
-
Went up to 20.5k (took off with 100% fuel). Got it up to 382mph stayed there for a few minutes to make sure.
I got 322mph on the deck but probably didn't wait long enough for it to hit 323.
The flaps did deploy at a lower speed than I expected but I've never seen any data to contradict the current deployment speed limit. :)
-
Flame bait
-
i don't have any problem flying axis planes - or doing well in them.
must be another factor at work for you. oh yeah, the kirby factor.
-
Hmmm - pretty poor rollrate at speed, combat flaps that won't deploy at combat speeds but instead at landing approach speeds, and fragile wings. And a mediocre top speed besides.
This plane doesn't appear at all to be the plane I thought it was.
Wonder what all the fuss was about. I don't think this kite is going to be the impetus for any new Japanese squads.
Might be interesting to try to master it as a 'handicap' fighter for the really hot sticks. Apart from that I can't imagine it getting much use. I'd choose the Ki.61 over it as it stands now.
all.
-
Hmmm....
Plane is still significantly under what I expected but my 1st hop in the "new" Ki-84 was good for 5 pelts, nikki,2 spits, pony & another Ki-84. Overall the E bleed was significantly better however the plane requires manual elv trim and prudent use of flaps. Also has poor acceleration and won't recover E very well.
Basically Ki-61 does everything better....
-
The Ki-84's combat flap is very effective in "stall" fight.
I love to use it when fighting against Spit 9.
I think Spit5 still out-turn Ki84 tho. :D
Also I feel P-51D is much better than Ki-84 at med-high speed maneuverability.
It seems P-51D pilots using flaps at high speed and out-turn the Frank.
-
Originally posted by Kaz
The flaps did deploy at a lower speed than I expected but I've never seen any data to contradict the current deployment speed limit. :)
Those butterfly type flaps (hydraulically operated), were specifically developed as combat flaps.
It's very hard to imagine that the combat setting could be deployed at landing speed only (about 160/170mph as modeled in AH2).
As the speed goes, those numbers were from service trial batch (only 83 build).
Production series craft were equipped with exhaust stacks (similar to the second trial batch) and achieved 392 mph max (Ha-45-11).
Also, about 1/2 of Ki-84-Ia were build with Ha-45-21 engine...
-
To me it is just silly to call this an accurate model of the Ki-84. It is akin to modeling the very first Spitfire with the fixed pitch, two bladed prop and no ejector exhausts and calling it an accurate flight model of the Spitfire Mk Ia.
This flight model, to me, is a less accurate representation of a wartime service Ki-84 than a flight model extrapolated from the performance of the prototype and adjusted to fit the known power curve of the Ha-45-21 engine and the known effects of ejector exhaust systems.
This Ki-84 is simply not a valid aircraft and is just as inapropriate for a WWII sim as a P-81A or Do335. It saw no combat and it should not be in the game.
-
Originally posted by Pyro
Top speed is 388, except for the fact that it's not making full power right now.
The WEP issue is a confusing one. Busa has been doing a lot of research for me over in Japan on the N1K and also the Ki-84. It's not very clear-cut as the engine had various restrictions placed upon it at various times and the IJA and IJN did not treat the engines the same. His research leaned toward the Ki-84 not making use of WEP while the N1K did, but again, it is not a clear-cut situation and is the source of much debate.
Pyro, I did the translation for Busa01... I am not a mechanic and didn't quite understand the physics/engineering behind it... You are right that there were certain restrictions placed on the operations of the engine, but I am not sure if that meant no WEP. I will go over it again with him. Perhaps I didn't do the translation right... come to think of it... I haven't answered his last email yet! Sorry, been busy with RL.
-
Well, I tried it online.
It is slow and seems to suffer from heavy controls at speed worse than the A6M does. It cannot be used to dive on any enemy at all as you have no control after a moderate dive. After a short dive there is no fighter in AH they will not easily escape it's guns.
I was never actually able to get into gun range of anything in the MA. They all simply outran me.
Testing the guns offline against the drones they felt very good. I like the guns.
The visibility from the cockpit was excelent. Not quite as good as the P-51D or Fw190 series, but not to far behind.
In a 1941 environment it would be a good fighter. In the 1945 MA it is sheer frusteration and utter crap I'm afraid.
I found that my expectation were wholly unrealistic I'm afraid. I was hoping for a fighter a bit faster than the Mossie, but able to manuver with other fighters that I would enjoy using. In the actuall event, the Ki-84 is inferior to the Mosquito in most ways, only being superior in low speed handling and visibility. Contrary to what some snide people make think, I did not expect the Ki-84 to do anything like 363mph at sea level and 427mph at best altitude. I just expected something a little better than this.
Unfortunately for me AH has now become (and has been for some time) a source of frusteration every time I play it. It seems that the horde easily out runs the aircraft I like and when I am trying to kill an enemy, way too often they can simply leave at will. The Mosquito was unable to be effective in that environment and the Ki-84 seems worse.
I still like air combat, but none of the MA superplanes draw me. I don't want to fly the P-51D, Fw190D-9, Bf109G-10, La-7 or Typhoon and yet it seems that without picking one of those the game is simply going to be an exercise in sheer frustration.
This makes me quite unhappy and I cannot think of a solution that I really find acceptable. I don't want to quit, I want to find a way to make the game fun again, but I can't think of how to do so.
-
If you could only read those pesky IL2/FB/AEP/PF gauges you would enjoy flying the Ki-84-1a there. Its a monster.
Ho-45/21 with water methanol. Its guns are lethal. It turns like dream, climbs like a love sick angle, accellerates like a bat out of hell and dives like an AH bomber pilot.
It's a shame... :p
-
Originally posted by Wotan
If you could only read those pesky IL2/FB/AEP/PF gauges you would enjoy flying the Ki-84-1a there. Its a monster.
Ho-45/21 with water methanol. Its guns are lethal. It turns like dream, climbs like a love sick angle, accellerates like a bat out of hell and dives like an AH bomber pilot.
It's a shame... :p
Actually I found it's guns pretty anemic unless I took the Ki-84-Ic, which I felt bad about because that one never saw service. Using the Ki-84-Ib I could just almost kill a single Me323 tranport. With the Ki-84-Ia it was hopless. With the Ki-84-Ic I'd kill it in a quarter second.
It seems that the gun model in IL-2 is way over generous to 30mm cannon, rating them about 50 times higher than a 20mm cannon.
The problem with Il-2 is that the AI is soooo boring to fight and it cheats. OK, that's one problem. Suffice it to say the IL-2 series has several really strong points for me and several game breaking flaws that render it all moot.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Well, I tried it online.
It is slow and seems to suffer from heavy controls at speed worse than the A6M does. It cannot be used to dive on any enemy at all as you have no control after a moderate dive. After a short dive there is no fighter in AH they will not easily escape it's guns.
I was never actually able to get into gun range of anything in the MA. They all simply outran me.
Testing the guns offline against the drones they felt very good. I like the guns.
The visibility from the cockpit was excelent. Not quite as good as the P-51D or Fw190 series, but not to far behind.
In a 1941 environment it would be a good fighter. In the 1945 MA it is sheer frusteration and utter crap I'm afraid.
I found that my expectation were wholly unrealistic I'm afraid. I was hoping for a fighter a bit faster than the Mossie, but able to manuver with other fighters that I would enjoy using. In the actuall event, the Ki-84 is inferior to the Mosquito in most ways, only being superior in low speed handling and visibility. Contrary to what some snide people make think, I did not expect the Ki-84 to do anything like 363mph at sea level and 427mph at best altitude. I just expected something a little better than this.
Unfortunately for me AH has now become (and has been for some time) a source of frusteration every time I play it. It seems that the horde easily out runs the aircraft I like and when I am trying to kill an enemy, way too often they can simply leave at will. The Mosquito was unable to be effective in that environment and the Ki-84 seems worse.
I still like air combat, but none of the MA superplanes draw me. I don't want to fly the P-51D, Fw190D-9, Bf109G-10, La-7 or Typhoon and yet it seems that without picking one of those the game is simply going to be an exercise in sheer frustration.
This makes me quite unhappy and I cannot think of a solution that I really find acceptable. I don't want to quit, I want to find a way to make the game fun again, but I can't think of how to do so.
Karnak ,
I understand your frustration to an extent. I have chosen my ride that is not the slowest , but certainly , by MA standards not the fastest by far. It is very frustating to have practically every plane in tha MA outrun you at will unless you have a substansial alt advantage.
I wish there was somthing I could suggest to you that would make it more fun , but I really have no idea. I haven't flown the KI-84 nor do I plan to at all. It has nothing to offer to me to pull me from my current plane.
Chin up man. I feel HTC is really trying and doing ALL they can to make the game the best they can. MA is a fast arena now. Early War planes are going to have to have an E state or simply chase everyone around like I do. :lol
Best of Luck....:aok
-
Karnak,
You'll just have to start flying in the CT. The plane matchups tend to be more balanced, and you don't usually have to contend with LA-7s and P-51s. The Ki.84/Hellcat may be a decent matchup.
I'm disappointed too, if the Ki.84 we have modelled is a 1943 prototype that never really saw service.
Hopefully it'll get straightened out though.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
I don't want to fly the P-51D, Fw190D-9, Bf109G-10, La-7 or Typhoon and yet it seems that without picking one of those the game is simply going to be an exercise in sheer frustration.
I don't want to quit, I want to find a way to make the game fun again, but I can't think of how to do so.
Karnak,
I am looking for your reasoning why you feel you need a speedy airplane like the ones I qouted you on above? I seldom ever fly a P51 or Typhoon, and you never see me in the other 3.......
Do you feel like with out the speed you do not have an equal chance of being competitive?
Is there anyway I might be able to help you in anyway in regards to flying something besides one of the super duper fast late war planes.........
they are not all that, and speed is over rated.....
-
Originally posted by RedTop
I haven't flown the KI-84 nor do I plan to at all. It has nothing to offer to me to pull me from my current plane.
RedTop, I would suggest at least flying it a few sorties to see how it reacts / responds when in a fight with other planes and fly it and fight it against your favorite plane........this can only increase your understanding of what the Ki-84 can and can not do and show you where you can maximize your fight against it......
I am not saying you need this...am only suggesting it to further your knowledge...
-
http://www.tgplanes.com/planfile.asp?idplane=94
this site best at true specs ww2.
-
Karnak...I have to agree with TC here. I hope you'll take him up on his offer to work with you, he's a great stick. If your a knight I'll be happy to wing with you any time. I'm certainly not an uber stick but was in the top 300 fighter rankings flying the Ki-61 almost exclustively over 2+ weeks (just switched handle in early Oct to join AK's). Personally I feel very comfortable vs any plane in set with the Ki-61...solid all around plane...sure I have some clips I can post for you.
As for Ki-84 I dont entirely agree with you. It's certainly not a dominant plane however in its current (post patch) form its not half bad. Had a 5 kill and a 4 kill hop...think I'm 11 or 12 to 1 in it. Only death was when I got bounced while target fixated on a spitty. The biggest concern is the airlions...lost both trying to clear another knights six and had to ditch it....it certainly restricts the planes ability as an E fighter. All in all the Ki-61 is a superior MA fighter IMO but in a 1 vs 1 the additional power makes a co-e one on one a tougher fight for the Ki-61.
I've always been suprised you view the mossie as a true fighter...to me its a limited use toy with no real abilities as a fighter other than an awesome HO/front quarter kill shot ability. Personally the Ki-61/P-40E/F4u-1/C-205/109-G2/Yak-9U/La-5/P47-11 are all excellent MA planes. You simply need to find the one that fits your style best.
As for the Ki-84...as modeled its not a match for any of the top 5 MA rides. If the ENY was ~30 or so I'd probably be more inclined to fly it a bit more...be curious to see what the #'s for it are at end of tour.
-
Originally posted by TequilaChaser
RedTop, I would suggest at least flying it a few sorties to see how it reacts / responds when in a fight with other planes and fly it and fight it against your favorite plane........this can only increase your understanding of what the Ki-84 can and can not do and show you where you can maximize your fight against it......
I am not saying you need this...am only suggesting it to further your knowledge...
Well TC...I may give it a ride in the DA. In the MA tho , I doubt it very much. I fly 1 plane pretty much 99.9 percent of the time. And , although I take my butt whoopins on a regular basis in my favorite ride I find that it is with out a doubt my favorite ride in the game bar none. It is my Favorite historic ride of WW2 as well.
Not to mention I'm in a squad that (supposed to) fly em. I am pretty much the only one that flies em all the time.
I appreciate the help and thoughts tho.
:aok
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Actually I found it's guns pretty anemic unless
I guess we have different experiences here as well. I shot down 7 in one sortie the other night. 3 p51s, 1 p40M, 2 jugs and a p38.
Landed upped again and killed 5 more.
12 kills in about 35 min.
AI is not he same as online, and it matters what you aim at and hit on the the aircraft in fb.
I upped an an A6m5 after that and killed a p40M then took what seemed like 1 .50 cal hit and lost elevator control and augered into the water.
-
I agree with humble.
Karnak, when at online I stopped talking about this since you seemed so upset that you wouldn't listen to anything else, but I hope you would calm down a bit and try it out with an open mind.
Even if the Hayate was modelled with its Ha-45-21 2000hp engine, the chances are that it would retain most of its characteristics as we see now. Now, in that case, would you still define the plane as 'crap'? I think not.
It seems you've expected so much in the speed category, and seeing how AH2 has changed from AH1 in speed/gunnery realism, rightfully so. But still, you emphasize so much on it particularly with the Ki-84 that you fail to acknowledge its other strengths as it is.
In a sense, under your definition the Mosquito would be a better 'fighter' than more than half of the fighter stock in AH2, but in reality it is not. There are many more things to what makes a plane great.
In that sense, while I fully agree that the data set chosen was a big disappointment, the Ki-84 is a very potent plane when it comes to combat.
Its basic handling at low-mid speed ranges is one of the best I've felt, and only at high speeds does it get heavy. Frankly, without much exaggeration it is easier to handle than even the Spitfire or the N1K2.
Very stable with harsh inputs and constant E bleeds right upto under 200mph, and when the speed goes under that, you can start using flaps, which is another big plus. Once the combat flaps are engaged the plane feels as gentle as alike a P-38, that turns like a Spitfire. It could have been a fluke, but during combat testing(..well.. just playing in the MA...) I was surprised to see that I was constantly outturning Spit9s... and able to gain a very very good gun solution.
The sheer excellency of the handling chracteristics itself is worth something - as per the experience of AH1 where Spit9s and N1K2s were so popular for their ease of handling.
Ofcourse, much has changed with AH2 and it takes a fast plane to catch up the resident 'monsters'. And again, in that aspect I agree that its a disappointment. But all other traits are satisfactory.
Now, Pyro has mentioned that the WEP issues are under debate and unclear. We have the previous past experience where the FM-2 was initially removed of the WEP, and then got it back again after a while.
If we can see a WEP system on the Ki-84, then I think it could be much more closer to the picture we had in mind. If it would allow it to develop about 20mph more speed at deck and about 15mph at alts.. then the Ki-84 would do about 344 at deck and 403 at alt.
So lets try and see what we can do to get a WEP system installed on our Ki-84, instead of going on and on with general complaints about whats done already.
-
The Ki-84 feels fine to me. It gets surprisingly stiff at high speeds, but man oh man can it rocket to those speeds. Once it hits about 380ias in a dive, though, it doesn't like to get much faster.
The guns feel easy to aim, and the medium to slow speed handling is excellent. I took the Ki-84 up against Drex's F6F in a scissoring fight, and it did just fine. Against PTO opponents, it matches up quite well.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
So are the cannons supposed to be the same as the Ki61's or not?
Is it supposed to be as slow as the N1K, or not?
Were the combat flaps restrictions really limited to the small pre-prod. batch or not?
-
"what we have here is plainly that no axis ride will ever be modelled faithfully if it is superior in performance to an allied model. hence the flap BS and so forth. Storch"
Flap B.S.? Do you realize that the auto-retracting flaps has the most negative impact on the P-38 which is an Allied plane? Time to readjust your tin foil hat.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by TequilaChaser
Karnak,
Do you feel like with out the speed you do not have an equal chance of being competitive?
Because everybody runs away unless in a horde and if it is a horde I am not good enough to fight them all, so I need enough speed to try to survive. The Mosquito, an aircraft that was renown for its speed, is slow as molasses here and I'm sick of having the chicken****s either run from me or gangbang me.
I was hoping the Ki-84 would narrow (not eliminate) the speed disadvantage and provide a platform that was also reasonably manuverable for fighting, something the Mosquito is poor at.
As it turns out the Mosquito is better at manuvering than the Ki-84 and is faster than the Ki-84 and massively outguns the Ki-84. In summary, the death trap Mosquito looks downright easy and safe compared to the Ki-84. I'd be better off switching to the N1K2. It still can't survive, but at least it can fight back before it dies.
It feels like I am 0 and 8 or so in the Ki-84 as I post this. I have hit the ground so many times it's not funny. It stalls out as bad as the Mossie, it gets heavy on the elevators worse than the A6M. I haven't been abble to dodge anything in it. Everything that I've tried to fight I could never get anywhere near gunnery range and it is incradible fragile. The Mosquito is incredibly easy comparitively. Of the two fights I've had in the Mossie tonight I won the one against a P-38L and lost to an La-7. In both cases I was heavy with bombs. I can't win a fight in the Ki-84 without bombs.
Kweassa,
You underestimate the Mossie. It is true that a co-alt fight is a bad thing for it, but it can do a lot with a little altitude and it dives like an anvil and maintains controlability the whole time. I have won some insane fights in it, and it is the only aircraft I've ever gone more than 15 and 0 in a row with. I got 31 kills in the Mossie before colliding with a Spitfire that I was trying to make victim #32, and no it wasn't an HO or front quarter shot.
The problems the Mossie has is that it is slower than crap, a huge target and everybody knows it so they want the free kill. Most Mossie drivers don't even try to fight.
-
Hmm..
What engine does our Ki-84 use anyway?
Is there any possibility that our Ki-84-Ia does use the Ha-45-21, but doesn't use the WEP?
This is all very confusing.
If the early Ki-84s with Ha-45-11 had already recorded 392mph, then wouldn't they have reached that speed with some kind of WEP engaged?
Or, does it mean that the early Ki-84s with a 1800hp reached 392mph max speed with just military power?
Then, how fast are they supposed to be with WEP?
So my questions are;
1) how fast is the Ki-84 with Ha-45-11 on military power only?
2) how fast is the Ki-84 with Ha-45-11 with emergency power engaged?
3) how fast is the Ki-84 with Ha-45-21 on military power only?
4) how fast is the Ki-84 with Ha-45-21 with emergency power engaged?
5) how do we know our Ki-84 has the Ha-45-11?
-
Wasn't the Ki-84 a high alt fighter?
-
What engine does our Ki-84 use anyway?
Ha-45/11
See Mitsu's post and graph.
HA45-SP means HA-45-Toku (Special in English), aka HA-45-11.
Is there any possibility that our Ki-84-Ia does use the Ha-45-21, but doesn't use the WEP?
Nope, the Ki-84 in AH2 is an early Ki-84 with a Ha-45/11 engine.
If the early Ki-84s with Ha-45-11 had already recorded 392mph, then wouldn't they have reached that speed with some kind of WEP engaged?
No, you are only talking 4 mph. The AH2 Ki-84 has a max power setting at 250mmHg @ 2900rpm. (standard maximum speed).
Or, does it mean that the early Ki-84s with a 1800hp reached 392mph max speed with just military power?
Actually from what I read the 1800hp was take off power running at 400mmHg @ 2900 rpm.
At 250mmHg it should have less then 1800hp.
AIREVIEW's General View of Japanese Military Aircraft In ThePacific War, Vol.1,pg.320:
Ha-45/11 NK9-B(IJN-nomenclature)
HP(T.O.): 1,800 @ 400mmHg & 2,900rpm
HP(2,000m/6,562-ft): 1,650 @ 250mmHg & same-rpm
HP(5,700m/18,701-ft): 1,460 @ 250mmHg & same-rpm
The Ki-84 as modeled in AH isn't mis-modeled. It hits the numbers it's supposed to (for the most part). Karnak is questioning why model a Ki-84 with a Ha-45/11 and not a later war Ki-84 with a Ho-45/21 and water methanol.
Most likely the answer is that HTC went with the data they have.
Then, how fast are they supposed to be with WEP?
Wep is mis-leading. You want to know what was the highest possible mmHg that the Ho-45/11 could run at and its time limit.. ie emergency power.
Take off power as I quoted above and have read else where is 400mmHg @ 2900hp. In AH the Ki-84 max power setting is 250mmHg @ 2900rpm.
The 388 mph (624 kph) figure is for "standard maximum speed" at +250 boost.
Clearly the Type 4 fighter could fly faster than 388 mph if the pilot increased power above +250. The question then becomes, how much faster. The manual doesn't answer that question.
HTC has data for a 250mmHg @ 2900rpm Ho-45/11 and thats what they modeled it.
1) how fast is the Ki-84 with Ha-45-11 on military power only?
288-392 mph (this could be max allowable boost for this version)
2) how fast is the Ki-84 with Ha-45-11 with emergency power engaged?
I don't think any one has come up with that data. As Pyro said:
The WEP issue is a confusing one. Busa has been doing a lot of research for me over in Japan on the N1K and also the Ki-84. It's not very clear-cut as the engine had various restrictions placed upon it at various times and the IJA and IJN did not treat the engines the same. His research leaned toward the Ki-84 not making use of WEP while the N1K did, but again, it is not a clear-cut situation and is the source of much debate.
Busa and Fdutchmen are looking into it.
If take off power is @ 400mmHg then clearly the Ki-84 could run about 250mmHg. The question is how much and how long and how much of a speed gain do you get..
3) how fast is the Ki-84 with Ha-45-21 on military power only?
about 410mph
4) how fast is the Ki-84 with Ha-45-21 with emergency power engaged?
Well at maximum boost and water methanol about 420mph (see the US test with 100 octane avgas)
5) how do we know our Ki-84 has the Ha-45-11?
Because thats the most prolific data. And by comparing the power settings.
The AH2 Ki-84 is for an early version with a Ho-45/11.
-
Frank's Top-Speed:388 or 427mph...):Case Closed? (http://www.j-aircraft.org/bbs/army_config.pl?read=9753)
-
Karnak...
We must be playing a different game. I have no problem finding some decent fights...obviously the horde is an issue at times but not always. As for the mossie its a marginal plane unless you have alt & E...basically you have to fight it from the advantage. It seems to me from your comments that your primarily focused on fighting from "the perch" Tiffie/D-9/109-G10/P47-40/P51 are all primarily E fighters...simply seems you want a plane that can outrun and outturn almost anything in the game....gee we have that already...its called a Yak-9U.
-
Humble,
If the Ki-84 had a top speed of 392mph and a top deck speed of 345mph I'd have been satisfied. That is hardly faster than everything in the MA.
This 323mph is just too hard to get over. The high speed handling that is as bad as an A6M is kinda shocking too, as is it's fragility.
-
Hello, all.
I want to give easy explanation about the performance of Ki84.
I submitted the official performance of Ki84 to Pyro.
The maximum speed is not <583km / 6000m>, and <631km / 6120m>.
Japanese planes are carried out performance measurement by Military power.
The engine which Ki84 installed is equipped with water methanol injection.
But Japanese engine of WEP is not related to water methanol injection.
The equipment operates automatically by MP higher than normal power.
There is no WEP of Japanese engine with output increase equipment.
It is an operation concept.
WEP was enacted in IJN in October, 1944.
But there are no data of having enacted WEP by IJA.
Also in the same engine, in IJA and IJN, operation restrictions differ in many cases.
I also proposed a possibility that takeoff power could be used for 1 minute.
But I think that this was equally treated by HTC with other airplanes without WEP.
The engine which KI84 installed is neither Homare21 nor Homare11 (Ha45sp).
The engine is Homere21 with documents.
But special operation restrictions are carried out.
The performance of the engine is completely the same as Homare12 (NK9 H-B).
The performance is as follows.
1820H.P. of takeoff power. (MP+350 RPM2900)
1670H.P/ 2400m of military power. (MP+250 RPM2900)
1500H.P./ 6550m of military power. (MP+250 RPM2900)
Ki84 prototype was installing Ha45sp with documents.
But the prototype of IJA installs the engine which is not usually government-issued supplies.
Ki84 prototype also had the engine which the development department assembled specially installed.
I concluded that the engine of the prototype of Ki84 was unknown.
The reason is because the prototype carried out performance measurement by MP+350 RPM3000.
These operation restrictions are the same as Homare21.
And the altitude which carried out performance measurement is too high for Ha45sp.
This fact is contradictory to the reduction ratio of the supercharger of Ha45sp.
The early production model of Ki84 may have installed Homare11(Ha45sp).
But the early production model of Ki84 may have installed Homare21 (Ha45).
The reason is that IJA tended to operate this engine by MP+350 RPM3000.
However, MP has not increased to +350.
Finally on documents, the engine which Ki84 installed is Homare21 (Ha45).
But operation restrictions were made the same as Homare11 and Homare12 (NK9 H-B) around April, 1944.
This fact can be checked till around April, 1945.
Ki84 in AH is installing Homare12(Homare21 derated engine).
Ki84 of a genuine article is installing Homare12 (Homare21 derated engine).
The prototype of Ki84 demonstrates 624 km/h by MP+350R PM3000.
Ki84 of AH demonstrates 624 km/h by MP+250 RPM2900.
This thinks that it is never the performance reduced unfairly.
These investigations are conducted based on the manual of N1K2-J, the manual of Ki84, the manual of Homare, INTERMIM REPORT NO.2, other manuals, and related 80-volume books of grade.
And even now, investigation is continued.
By the way, The climb rate of Ki84 greater than official performance now.
Isn't this thing more serious?
To FDutchman
I have translated the data of WEP, Homare, Ki84, and others.
Since other data were too extensive, I had you help.
It will be my responsibility if a defect is in data.
Thank you, FD.
I want my translation software to do good work.
Thank you all.
-
Originally posted by busa
By the way, The climb rate of Ki84 greater than official performance now.
Isn't this thing more serious?
I agree with you. I am surprised this has not gathered much attention. KI84 as currently modelled is among the best climbing of aircraft in the game. The rate of climb is something more than the rate of climb gauge is able to display (which is to say the aircraft's guage is buried at maxium reading - struck me as odd at the time - but I am not studied in this).
-
Thank you for your efforts Busa.
I did note the climb performance, but I think people are overstating it a bit. To me it is only off by a two or three hundred feet per minute, not the thousand feet per minute that some claim.
Is the top sustained sea level speed of the Ki-84 correct at 520km/h? That seems very slow to me.
What about the exhaust ejector stacks that were added to the later prototypes and the production models? Did your data mention them?
Last I wonder if you have data about the Ki-84's poor roll rate and elevator heaviness. It is surprising that the IJA would except an aircraft for service in 1944 that is as bad as the IJN's 1940 A6M fighter in regards to control heaviness.
I had understood that the Ki-84 represented a recognition by the IJA command that speed was required for modern fighters. If the flight model in Aces High is correct that cannot have been so as the Ki-84 is incapable of attaining or fighting at medium and higher speeds.
-
I think everyone is confusing about definition of the War Emergency Power.
Running the engine at over-boost is also WEP.
IJA Ki-84 Flight Manual by P-kun shows example:
Engine "Ha45-21" r.p.m/ manifold pressure
Emergency(1 min): 3000rpm/+400mmHg
Militery(30Min): 2900rpm/+250mmHg
Normal Max(long time): 2000rpm/+100mmHg
Crusing: 1800`2000/-100mmHg`-200mmHg
Permission maximum(30sec): 3200rpm/-200mmHg
-
(http://park1.wakwak.com/~mitsu/ki84_speed1.jpg)
Karnak, as you know, this is the TAIC Ki-84's speed curve graph. The leftmost graph is recorded at the lower military power (around 1800HP at SL).
it fits HA-45-11's power curve too. So we can suppose the Ki-84 performance which had HA-45-11 from it.
324mph at SL, it is not strange.
-
I love current AH Ki-84, but I hope to equip true HA-45-21 engine to Ki-84-1-Ko to get a clear-cut answer (luckily, we have TAIC Ki-84 data to simulate HA-45-21 engined Ki-84).
Over 3000 Ki-84s are built in RL. At least one hundred Ki-84-Is equipped with HA-45-21 engine like a N1K2-J in the late war, didn't they? Oh well, at least Ki-84-I-Otsu recorded 660km/h in the flight test in the late stage of the war, Japanese researchers are thinking it is highly possible that its Ki-84 is tested with HA-45-21 engine.
-
Mitsu, the problem with the TAIC performance is that it was just an early estimate of what this new plane could be capable of doing and provide some intelligence to commanders and pilots. A blurb that accompanies this performance states:
"Drag analysis is based on areas and dimensions and the assumption that the plane will have lines similar to OSCAR. Dimensions given are similar to those of OSCAR and it is quite certain this plane is of Nakajima design. Performance figures should be taken as estimates but they do give an indication of the expected performance of new Japanese fighters."
Busa, thanks for your help. I'll have to take a look at the climb rate. It may be that it's not falling off fast enough with altitude.
As far as the takeoff power, I left it out under the impression that it was restricted from use. That's what I still have a point of confusion about.
-
Pyro, was the Wright Field test data TIAC (I've seen it suggested based on similarities to TIAC), or was that actual post war test data?
Charon
-
Pyro - thanks reply, but...still no wep and climb performance is gonna go down?
-
Hello all.
N1K2-J is installing Homare21 also for the prototype plane and production plane.
But it is a thing in documents.
This engine is the performance of Homare12.
This fact is already reported.
It is written to the manual of Ki84 which IJA edited, and the manual of Ki84 which TAIC edited that the engine of Ki84 is the same as Homare12.
Both of data are submitted to Pyro and examined.
With the new book of Ki84 published in Japan, the production plane of Ki84 is written about a possibility of demonstrating a better performance.
However, with this book, it is not written that performance measurement was carried out by MP+350.
Readers can interpret MP as the ability to increase by installing Homare21.
And since Ki84 is installing Homare11, it has been written that it cannot increase to MP+350.
But it is not written before half a year that having operated by MP+350 is reported at this meeting.
Since this mysterious text existed, I said that it was under research.
In this report, I connected with the researcher and have got advice.
However, since I have not adjusted a schedule with him, I was not able to do investigation about this affair.
And I said that I reported this affair to Pyro later.
Thank you.
-
Thanks for the information Busa. That is interesting. If you do meet with him it will be interesting to find out what he has uncovered.
-
Originally posted by Mitsu
The Ki-84's combat flap is very effective in "stall" fight.
I love to use it when fighting against Spit 9.
I think Spit5 still out-turn Ki84 tho. :D
Also I feel P-51D is much better than Ki-84 at med-high speed maneuverability.
It seems P-51D pilots using flaps at high speed and out-turn the Frank.
Around 3 AM this morning, INYO and I tested the Ki-84 head to head with the Spitfire Mk.V to determine which was better at turn fighting.
I give the advantage to the Spitfire. It accelerates faster, rolls better and turns a bit tighter (not much, but enough). Where the Ki-84 has a slight advantage is in the vertical and especially when the Spit overheats and runs out of WEP.
In terms of minimum turning circle, the Spit wins. But, part of the advantage stems from the Spits better handling at the limit. The Hayate suffers more from torque.
I never saw more than 379.5 mph after an 18 mile run at 21.5k. I saw speeds at or slightly above 330 on the deck (actually at 300 feet.)
I found E retention in the Spit was better than the Ki-84 as well.
What we have here is a radial powered, long ranging Japanese interpretation of the Spitfire V, without WEP restictions. It has better outward vision, but tends to shed control surfaces when speed gets up near 500 mph. At medium to high speeds, the Ki-84 cannot hang with the Spitfire due to control stiffening and the risk of breaking things under high G loading.
I was very impressed with the B-24J, which seems to the fighter pilot's heavy bomber. Unusually maneuverable once the bombs are gone. That could make a great scrum in the DA, a dozen light B-24s with a gunner manned nose turret only.... Lancasters play at their peril. :)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Hello Karnak & all.
I have what you should be first told about.
In my translation software, English-Japanese translation cannot be performed not much well.
I may misunderstand your question.
I am seldom thinking the exhaust thrust effect as important in this report.
The reason is that it cannot find the data for verifying it.
I have calculated the exhaust thrust of Ha45 roughly.
But this figure cannot be contrasted with performance data.
The engine after the Ki84 prototype of No. 4 (or No. 5) did not demonstrate sufficient performance.
In Nakajima, the engine test was performed like every day.
It continued half a year.
And a good result was not obtained but the test was stopped.
And Ki84 became adoption suspension several months after.
The reason is because MP cannot increase to +350.
And engine will be operated with new restriction.
And Ki84 was adopted.
Exhaust thrust equipment was equipped these days.
The data of a performance better than the official performance measured on and after these days have not been discovered.
There were more inferior data.
However, I think that this is not a formal performance.
However, there is a measurement result which Mitsu presented and which was very excellent.
I also consider this data that it is difficult to treat similarly to a formal performance.
I think that it is our future subject.
Controllability of Ki84.
Ki84 redesigned a plan to install 2000H.P. engine in Ki44.
Ki84 weakened effectiveness of an elevator to the limit, and it was designed so that it might battle at high speed.
A tail gear was not grounded under the influence of downwash of a flap by the prototype model at the time of landing. Of course, the flap, the horizontal stabilizer, and the elevator were improved. But, it did not solve.
It is because it was judged that it was not useful for Ki84 to solve it.
The pilot said that he could not raise a nose of an airplane even if it pulls a stick at a low speed.
In order to accelerate at combat speed, even if it pushed the stick, it was said that a nose of an airplane could be lowered only about 20 degrees.
Clearly, the Controllability which is different in Ki43 or Ki44 was able to be given.
"The test pilots of Nakajima and IJA thought that Ki84 should equip a control system with the elevator and rudder of high control force,And aileron of low control force."
It was the controllability similar to the foreign airplane. (The result was the middle grade of foreign airplanes and IJA airplanes. )
"Directional stability at the high speed was made so good that it is imbalanced at the time of turn, it raised shooting accuracy. (The vertical stabilizer with low height had a problem in Ki44. However, it is unknown whether there was any problem by Ki84.)"
As compared with more heavily built with the same engine, the@small propeller has not offered the outstanding climbing performance.
IJA wanted to make the airplane similar to Fw190A5.
Though it was regrettable, since the thrust was insufficient, Fw190A8 was resembled.
But, the IJA was able to get what they wanted.
Though regrettable, I cannot explain why Roll Rate of Ki84 is not excellent.
We think that Roll Rate of N1K2-J is not good, either.
I expect that Pyro answers.
Thank you for reading my poor English.
-
Thanks Busa.
I understood what you were saying.
It is odd that Nakajima wanted low stick forces on the ailerons and in Aces High there are very heavy stick forces on the ailerons.
-
There is good discussion now... :)
to busa and all.
Let's more discuss and feedback about Ki-84 and other planes without bias...
We can get a chance of tweaking FM from Pyro.
I hope these discussions always help Aces High's vehicles development.
-
There's a British test of the ki-84 vs. Seafire. I haven't seen the document but its available at PRO.
From what others who have seen the document report:
Unfortunately Frank was sick, and couldn't get max power rendering the whole thing less than useful. The RN Lt wasn't too worried by Frank's abilities though, and estimated that with the -21 engine it could do 330mph at s/l, 400 at 20k and 380 at 30k.
It stalled at 109mph clean, which will serve to place it in terms of turning ability. The Seafire out-turned the Frank easily at 5,000ft 160mph. Combat flaps made little improvement.
Speed at 20,000 with 2900rpm 250 boost was 218kt IAS, which is around 350 mph true, but this may have been paced by what the Seafire(NN610, F III) could do. Above this power the CSU failed.
From my notes...
"Frank rolled 25% better than Seafire."
"Frank's controls do not stiffen like other Japanese a/c but it is still inferior at high speed manoeuvre."
Remeber the condition of the Ki-84 in the above was in very poor shape.
The TAIC numbers for the Ki-84 are estimates. AFAIK the Wright Patterson tests, all though sited in several books, has not been rediscovered. Of course that test was with 100 octane fule which I have read was used to achieve similiar power settings as a Ha-45/21 with water methonal.
However, there are several pilot accounts that support or at least do not rule out a Ki-84 running at 420+.
For instance:
Next best source might be a Type 4 pilot. W.O. Yukio Nakamura flew the Type 4 fighter in Japan and then in combat in the Philippines. He was captured by the Americans and interrogated (he was deemed "fairly reliable") and gave detailed information on the Type 4 fighter. According to Nakamura the aircraft's max speed was 700 kph true airspeed. That comes out to about 434 mph.
From what I have read the 'exhaust stacks' if the thrust is efficiently ported, is equivalent to approximately 10% in lbs of the INDICATED HP.
-
This is info from "Combat Aircraft of WWII". I think I trust Busa's research more than published data from over 30 years after the war, but here it is.
Data
Origin:
Nakajima Hikoki KK Also built by Mansyu Hikoki Seizo KK and (3 Ki-106) Tachikawa Hikoki KK
Type:
Single-seat interceptor and fighter-bomber
Span:
36' 11" (11.238 metres)Length: 32' 7" (9.92 metres)Height: 11' 1" (3.385 metres)
Engines:
In all production models - One 1,900 hp Nakajima Homare Ha-45 Model 11 18-cylinder two-row radial
Armament:
(Ki-84-1a)
2 x 20mm Ho-5 cannon in wings, each with 150 rounds
2 x 12.7mm Type 103 machine-guns in upper fuselage, each with 350 rounds
(Ki-84-Ib)
4 x 20mm Ho-5 cannon (2 in wings, 2 in fuselage) each with 150 rounds
(Ki-84-Ic)
2 x 30 mm Ho-105 cannon in wings, 2 x 20 mm Ho-5 cannon in fuselage
(all models)
Two racks under outer wings for bombs or fuel tanks up to 250 kg (550 lbs) each
Performance:
Maximum speed 388 mph (624 km/hour) / Initial climb (typical) 3.600 feet (1,100 metres) per minute
Service ceiling 34,450 (10,500 metres)
Range on internal fuel 1,025 miles (1,650 kilometres)
Range with 98-gallon drop tanks 1,815 miles (2,920 kilometres)
-
The debate goes on here (http://www.j-aircraft.org/bbs/army_config.pl?read=9753)
This one stood out. Whether or not it is true I do not know.
It gives reference to a book but again I do not know if the information in it is reliable.
MUSTANG AND THUNDERBOLT ACES OF THE PACIFIC AND CBI by Osprey (http://www.j-aircraft.org/bbs/army_config.pl?read=10327)
Looks like elevator/aileron/rudder (particularly elevator & aileron) effectiveness may need some tweaking if Pyro finds the information provided by busa to be true.
A tail gear was not grounded under the influence of downwash of a flap by the prototype model at the time of landing. Of course, the flap, the horizontal stabilizer, and the elevator were improved. But, it did not solve.
It is because it was judged that it was not useful for Ki84 to solve it.The pilot said that he could not raise a nose of an airplane even if it pulls a stick at a low speed.
From this I interpret that it was difficult to get the tail down soon after touchdown.
"Directional stability at the high speed was made so good that it is imbalanced at the time of turn, it raised shooting accuracy. (The vertical stabilizer with low height had a problem in Ki44. However, it is unknown whether there was any problem by Ki84.)"
As compared with more heavily built with the same engine, the@small propeller has not offered the outstanding climbing performance.
IJA wanted to make the airplane similar to Fw190A5.
Though it was regrettable, since the thrust was insufficient, Fw190A8 was resembled.
But, the IJA was able to get what they wanted.
I interpret this to mean that the roll rate was similar to the Fw190A8 at high speed (and perhaps low speed) and the climbing performance was also similar to the Fw190A8.
Correct me if I'm wrong :)
-
Here's my take on what Busa's trying to say:
Ki84 redesigned a plan to install 2000H.P. engine in Ki44.
Ki84 weakened effectiveness of an elevator to the limit, and it was designed so that it might battle at high speed.
"Ki-84 was essentially a redesign of an original plan which the Ki-44 was to be fitted with a 2000hp engine. With consideration to combat at higher speeds, the Ki-84 elevator efficiency(=turning capability) was given less emphasis than before(as compared to aileron efficiency)."
A tail gear was not grounded under the influence of downwash of a flap by the prototype model at the time of landing. Of course, the flap, the horizontal stabilizer, and the elevator were improved. But, it did not solve.
It is because it was judged that it was not useful for Ki84 to solve it.
"The prototype had problems with the tail gear not extending properly during landings. The reason was traced back to the influence of the downwash casued by flaps in landing position. While subsequentially the design of the flaps, horizontal stabs and elevators were enhanced, the tail gear problem was never really solved. It is probably because there were other priorities and redesigning the whole rear-end to solve this problem was out of the question."
The pilot said that he could not raise a nose of an airplane even if it pulls a stick at a low speed.
In order to accelerate at combat speed, even if it pushed the stick, it was said that a nose of an airplane could be lowered only about 20 degrees. Clearly, the Controllability which is different in Ki43 or Ki44 was able to be given.
"The elevator efficiency (compared to other JP planes) was reduced to the point that a slight pull of the stick would not effect the pitch of the plane at low speeds. It is said that while the plane was accelerated to combat speed the pilot pushing slightly on the stick would achieve only 20 degrees lower pitch. Clearly, this kind of elevator response was very different from the Ki-43 or the Ki-44."
The test pilots of Nakajima and IJA thought that Ki84 should equip a control system with the elevator and rudder of high control force,And aileron of low control force. It was the controllability similar to the foreign airplane. (The result was the middle grade of foreign airplanes and IJA airplanes. )
"The test pilots of Nakajima Aviation and IJAAF retained opinions that the Ki-84 should emphasize in light controls with the ailerons, and heavy controls with the elevators, as per the contemporary example of the fighters of the other major combatants of the war. The result achieved was at a somewhat middle point between a typical Japanese fighter and "foreign" fighters."
Directional stability at the high speed was made so good that it is imbalanced at the time of turn, it raised shooting accuracy. (The vertical stabilizer with low height had a problem in Ki44. However, it is unknown whether there was any problem by Ki84.)
"Directional stability at high speeds were greatly improved, almost causing over correction, which greatly helped improving shooting accuracy and gaining gun solution. (There were problems reported with the Ki-44 due to its short vertical stabs, but there is no reference as to if such was also the case with the Ki-84)"
As compared with more heavily built with the same engine, the@small propeller has not offered the outstanding climbing performance.
"When compared with the more heavily built fighters using the same engine such as the C6N or the N1K2-J, the short propellers installed on the Ki-84 resulted in not much of an increase in climbing performance(despite the Ki-84 was more lighly built). "
IJA wanted to make the airplane similar to Fw190A5.
Though it was regrettable, since the thrust was insufficient, Fw190A8 was resembled.
But, the IJA was able to get what they wanted.
"In a summary, the IJAAF intended to make a plane resembling something like an AH Fw190A-5, but the insufficient thrust has caused it to be somewhat like the AH Fw190A-8. However, all in all, the IJAAF was generally pleased with what they've achieved."
Though regrettable, I cannot explain why Roll Rate of Ki84 is not excellent.
We think that Roll Rate of N1K2-J is not good, either.
"Unfortuately, I cannot explain why the Ki-84 modelled in AH2 does not have excellent roll rate. In our opinion, we also think the roll rate of the AH2 N1K2-J is too low."
-
WTG Busa. This is very interesting to read.
-
Going back to the speed issue. The speed as modeled is the official performance taken from a translated Ki-84 manual. Now I think the point of confusion over the official specs is because of the fact that the top speed was 624 kph, which happens to be the same top speed that is cited in the test of a prototype. So the assumption was that the official performance was simply the results of the early prototype test and that production numbers should be higher because of improvements such as better exhaust stacks and perhaps some aerodynamic refinements. However, this theory fell apart when Busa's research found that the prototype's top speed of 624 kph was reached using +350mm/3000 RPM. The 624 kph in the official performance was reached using +250mm/2900 RPM, the military power limit used in production Ki-84s. So in fact, this does show that some improvements were made as the production version reached the same speed as the prototype at a lower power setting. It's just that the production models were derated to the lower setting, so the improvements were not seen in the top speed figure.
-
Thanks Pyro. That clears things up if the manual figure is representative of the majority of the production run and service life. I personally have no problem with the Ki-84 at 388/324 if that was the common perfromance encountered in RL. This attention to detail with the flight models is frankly my main attraction to AH.
Charon
-
Pyro,
Do you have any idea why the British rated the Ki-84's roll rate 25% higher than the Seafire's and why they said that it didn't suffer from control heaviness at higher speeds as much as other Japanese fighters?
It seems nearly as bad as the the A6M series on both counts right now.
-
Thank you for Kweassa which made wonderful translation.
to Mitsu and all.
-
Thanks for clearing that up Pyro. FWIW I view the sluggish rollrate of the Ki.84 as a more serious problem than 388 vs 392 mph top speed.
With regard to busa's posting it does seem like rollrate is an issue to be looked at.
Has anyone compared AH's Seafire rollrate to the Ki.84 rollrate?
EDIT: I just completed some offline testing comparing the Seafire's rollrate to the Ki.84s. Starting each A/C with 50% fuel, all tests were done at 5,000' AGL, IAS of 250 mph. I did one complete barrel roll 3 times each, left and right and took an average for each direction. Interesting results:
The Seafire rolled left about 94 deg/sec, and rolled right at 98 deg/sec.
The Hayate rolled left at 76.5 deg/sec and rolled right at 77.6 deg/sec.
So the AH Ki.84 has a significantly worse rollrate than the AH Seafire, not 25% better as Wotan's post above indicated RL Royal Navy testing revealed.
-
I agree that the roll rate is unrealistically low with what's been presented.
-
Pyro,
Does the elevator heaviness look correct to you?
Thanks for looking at the roll rate.
-
Originally posted by Pyro
I agree that the roll rate is unrealistically low with what's been presented.
Cool, that means it'll be fixed :cool:
Question... Why wasn't Ki-84 modelled with Homare 21 engine? N1K2 has the same engine and most of data you already have (WEP, etc).
That way you'd have less guessing, plus you would get "real" late war Frank, which was competitive against P51s, P47s and P38s.
One more... Any plans of adding K-84 with Homare 21 (or even 23) in the future? Or perhaps Ki-84-Ib?
EDIT:
Can you check the dive speeds as well? Ki-84 was succesfully brought to 496mph in dive with no ill effects, in AH2 it sheds ailerons and elevators somewhere between 490-500mph.
Could there be transission period of about 20-30mph before parts start falling off like most other AH planes have?
-
I also feel the poor roll rate is a bigger liability than the top speed. Good to know you are looking into it Pyro. Even if it was increased to somewhere near the Seafire, not necessarily above it, in roll rate that will go a long way to making it a more competitive ride.
I think we should let the dust settle, let Pyro and HT work out the kinks in the Ki84, and in the end we will have a plane just about everyone can live with.
-
Originally posted by Grits
I think we should let the dust settle, let Pyro and HT work out the kinks in the Ki84, and in the end we will have a plane just about everyone can live with.
Well, once the roll rate is increased it'll be a lot better.
I'm still a bit unhappy about the elevator heaviness at speed.
Durability seems very low, more like what I'd expect of a Ki-43, minus the fires. I have yet to be hit without losing major parts of the aircraft. It seems more fragile than the A6M2 or Spitfire Mk I and based on it's weight that seems odd.
-
Originally posted by Pyro
Going back to the speed issue. The speed as modeled is the official performance taken from a translated Ki-84 manual. Now I think the point of confusion over the official specs is because of the fact that the top speed was 624 kph, which happens to be the same top speed that is cited in the test of a prototype. So the assumption was that the official performance was simply the results of the early prototype test and that production numbers should be higher because of improvements such as better exhaust stacks and perhaps some aerodynamic refinements. However, this theory fell apart when Busa's research found that the prototype's top speed of 624 kph was reached using +350mm/3000 RPM. The 624 kph in the official performance was reached using +250mm/2900 RPM, the military power limit used in production Ki-84s. So in fact, this does show that some improvements were made as the production version reached the same speed as the prototype at a lower power setting. It's just that the production models were derated to the lower setting, so the improvements were not seen in the top speed figure.
Pyro thanks for the insight into your decision process to model Ki84 at 324/388.
:)
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Well, once the roll rate is increased it'll be a lot better.
I'm still a bit unhappy about the elevator heaviness at speed.
Durability seems very low, more like what I'd expect of a Ki-43, minus the fires. I have yet to be hit without losing major parts of the aircraft. It seems more fragile than the A6M2 or Spitfire Mk I and based on it's weight that seems odd.
Doesnt seem that bad in the durability dept. to me. Of course experiences will vary and most of my encounters thus far have not been vs anything with cannons. It takes quite a pounding from buff gunners without coming apart though. I landed two times last night after going up against B24 formations, both times I lost the engine and still managed to hang in a glide behind them long enough to get kills. VERY stable gun platform, even fishtailing back and forth to hit bomber engines. Damage list just before landing was fairly extensive, but the wings and tail stayed with me even through the belly landings. I did notice it seems to have a tendency to want to stall if you try to go too suddenly into a nose low turn at speed, but corrected quickly and easily.
-
I know someone has the real Wright field test somewhere...Mobilize the forces, let's start digging! :)
-
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
Doesnt seem that bad in the durability dept. to me.
Hmm. So far it seems that any 20mm hit to the wing will remove the wing.
Maybe I'm getting unlucky. I'd like to test it in a controled environment.
-
Pyro wrote:
>However, this theory fell apart when Busa's research found that
>the prototype's top speed of 624 kph was reached using
>+350mm/3000 RPM.
Question.
I've confirmed 4th prototype's top speed of 631kph was reached using +350mm/3000rpm from the books, but I couldn't find out 1st prototype is reached 624kph using +350mm/3000 RPM. Where did he get this source?
Thanks.
-
From a scenario (and possibly C'T) perspective, a better performing Ki84 would do a marvellous job to keep the P-XX and F-YY drivers honest. My little hint (and hope) is that once substantial data for the "fast Ki84" emerges, we get this plane as a new variant and retain the existing "early" Frank.
If the Ki84 model as of now is representative for an early -84, dont fix what is not broken.
I think both planes could complement each other very well.
-
Originally posted by leitwolf
From a scenario (and possibly C'T) perspective, a better performing Ki84 would do a marvellous job to keep the P-XX and F-YY drivers honest. My little hint (and hope) is that once substantial data for the "fast Ki84" emerges, we get this plane as a new variant and retain the existing "early" Frank.
If the Ki84 model as of now is representative for an early -84, dont fix what is not broken.
I think both planes could complement each other very well.
I agree.
- oldman
-
Hmmmm, I just thought if HTC keeps current AH Ki-84-Ia, and if they model 1945 Ki-84-Ib with HA-45-21 engine and 20mm*4 cannons and max speed 660km/h.....:p
-
Not being a student of WW2 aircraft performance I can't really comment on the KI84's capabilities per that period, only on game play.
I find it a cute fun little plane kinda like a high performance Zeke.
Its high speed handling is quite poor, makes a 109G2 seem like a pony :)
I never flew any of the other sim's, but everyone was talking about what a monster it was and the possibility that it should be perked in here..somewhat comical really.
shamus
-
It was too long although I wrote the text which contributes to this BBS.
http://homepage2.nifty.com/amraam/ah/tmp/bbs002.txt
The performance table of Homare is exhibited.
http://homepage2.nifty.com/amraam/ah/tmp/bbs002.zip
The control force of the elevator of Ki84 adds a heavy reason.
It is the same as the teachings which the pilot of P51 says.
When it controls like Aerobatic plane, it is for losing energy.
And it is based on experience obtained from employment of Ki33 and Ki44.
The elevator whose response is too good caused disintegration in mid-air.
Moreover, the elevator of Ki44 was past effectiveness to wing load.
For this reason, the pilot pulled the stick too much at the time of landing, and accidents occurred frequently.
It was thought by employment of Ki44 that a combat flap was unnecessary.
The switch of a combat flap was not attached in the stick in Ki84.
It was difficult for Ki84 after landing for a tail gear to make it ground.
The character was the same before grounding.
It was difficult to even ground three landing gears simultaneously.
Although there were many pilots who have a negative idea in the character of Ki84, IJAAF did not change Ki84.
(Probably, as for such a pilot, Ki100 should be given. It was estimated that Ki100 could be fought on a par with three sets of Ki84.)
The rightness of the plan was accepted in the air combat in the China continent.
And it turns out that the character follows difficulty on air combat with U.S. navy airplanes.
I have almost no time to fly, since it is fighting with English now.
However, it is thought that Ki84 in AH has the pitch characteristic which excelled for combat at high speed.
Thank you.
-
Thank you busa, for all your effort to uncover the facts of Ki.84 performance.
Some suprising findings in your linked document regarding Japanese performance testing of the Ki.84 against various American aircraft.
Notably:
=============================================
. P-40 initial acceleration better than Ki.84
. Speed of Ki.84 and P-51 almost the same (wonder which P- 51? China had Allison-equipped P-51As in I'm not mistaken)
. Ki.84 dive is superior to P-51
. F6F is better than Ki.84 in speed, climb and acceleration.
==========================================
These findings, it seems to me, conflict with one another. For example, I don't know why Ki.84 would outclimb P-40 but not out-accelerate it.
Also, P-51 should be superior in speed to F6F, but findings indicated the Ki.84 and P-51 were roughly the same in speed but inferior to the F6F.
-
Here is some of the Wright Pat test results.
Viewed from the cockpit
The following account of the characteristics of the Hayate was prepared by one of the USAAF test pilots responsible for evaluating a Ki.84-I-ko which had been recovered at Clark Field, Luzon, and transported to Wright Field, Dayton, Ohio, after preliminary testing by a Technical Air Intelligence Unit pilot in situ whose task it was to ready the fighter for the subsequent tactical trials in the USA. The evaluation at Wright Field comprised a total of 11 1/2 flying hours but the test programme was frequently interrupted by failure of exhhaust stacks as a result of the poor materials used in their manufacture coupled with inefficient welding. Problems were also experienced with the hydraulics.
THE COCKPIT of the Hayate was entered from the port wing root walkway and was facilitated by a retractable step and a push-in type handhold at the wing trailing edge, and a second retractable step just below the cockpit sill, these being extremely well located and making for easier access than offered by con-temporary AAF fighters. The stamped metal pilot's seat could be adjusted vertically by means of a handle on the left side, but the locking pin in this particular aircraft did not always engage, with the result that the seat had an annoying tendency to shift under g force changes. The AAF shoulder harness that had been fitted for the test programme was anything but satisfactory, affording no protection for the pilot whatsoever in the event of a crash landing as no stress member had been installed over which the straps could be passed and in the event of an accident involving longitudinal deceleration, the sheet metal seat back would undoubtedly have failed and the pilot would have struck his head on gunsight or instrument panel.
The layout of the cockpit itself was, in general, satisfactory, with the flight and engine instruments logically grouped, the former being arranged on the upper centre portion of the panel with the latter below. The flap and undercarriage controls were situated on the lefthand side of the floor, with the elevator trim wheel and engine control quadrant against the lefthand side wall. No fiight-adjustable aileron or rudder trim tabs were provided, preventing the aircraft being trimmed for hands-off flight. The auxiliary electrical panel and ignition boost control containing circuit breakers were below the instrument panel on the right; the internal and external fuel selector valves and fuel cooler and primer controls were on the righthand side of the floor, and the cowling and oil cooler flap controls were on the upper right cockpit side, together with the radio equipment. The auxiliary hydraulic pump was further aft on the righthand side and the mechanical up-lock release was on the left side of the cockpit floor.
The wobble pump, primer and starter button, all being on the right, kept one hand rather busy in starting, and it soon
became obvious that the Hayate handled rather poorly in taxying owing to inadequate braking action, a condition aggravated by the inefficient design of the rudder bar and toe brake assembly. Use of the brakes was mandatory for "S"ing in order to obtain a measure of forward vision. At the same time, braking had to be strictly limited in order to prevent overheating and locking as a consequence. It proved difficult to get the tailwheel to castor and vision for taxying was certainly not improved by the narrow cockpit and rearward position of the seat, but the actual take-off characteristics were good, with negligible torque effect if rated power was applied gradually. On the other hand, if power was piled on, full right rudder and some braking were necessary to counter the strong pull to port. Three-point take-offs could be safely executed at 95 mph (153 km/h) IAS with normal rated power or above, initial acceleration being normal with either 15 deg flap or no flap at all. At 150 mph (241 km/h) IAS only some four seconds were required for undercarriage retraction, this process producing no loss in altitude or sinking feeling and negligible trim change, and it was immediatcly obvious that initial climb rate wasextremely good, although no performance climbs could beattempted owing to flying time restrictions.
Excellent handling and control
Once the canopy was shut it became apparent that the cockpit left something to be desired from the viewpoint of comfort for a normal-sized pilot owing to the severely restricted head room, and the design of the seat coupled with lack of provision for rudder pedal adjustment would obviously have resulted in some discomfort during extended operations. However, body room was ample and heat level and ventilation volume were found to be good for warm weather operation at low and medium altitudes cold weather operation would have been another story owing to lack of cockpit heat. Despite a some- what narrow canopy, combat vision was excellent in climbing flight when gentle "S"turns were necessary. The cockpit noise level proved to be fairly normal for a radial-engined fighter without an exhaust collector ring, and the vibration level was definitely lower than that of the A6M5 Zero-Sen, especially at high speed, and comparing fairly closely with that of most contemporary US fighters.
It was quickly ascertained that, in general, the handling and control characteristics of the Hayate were superior to those of comparable US fighters and particularly in the low speed regime. The roll rate and turning radius were found to be slightly inferior to those of the A6M5, but control feel was very good; rudder and aileron forces were light, well correlated and produced quick, positive changes of attitude. Elevator forces, although heavier than those of the rudder and ailerons, were not objectionable and progressed with g forces with no apparent lightening. No flat spots or control reversal tendencies were encountered over an IAS range of 74 to 350 mph (119 to 563 km/h). There were little changes in directional trim between 150 and 350 mph (241 and 563 km/h), but the rudder control became extremely sensitive at 300 mph (483 km/h) lAS. sensitivity reducing somewhat at higher speeds.
As previously mentioned, flight adjustable trim was provided for the elevators only and the trim control worked easily, but excessive play at the cockpit end of the device resulted in some difficulties in the initial pre-setting of the tab, although very little trim change was necessary throughout the level flight speed of the aircraft. Only slight longitudinal trim changes occurred with opcration of the undcrcarriage and flaps. The lack of in-flight trimming for the ailerons or rudder did not seem serious, although a rudder trimmer would undoubtedly have improved the Hayate's capabilities as a gun platform. As flown, the Hayate had been rigged with too much right rudder trim and the attendant starboard wing heaviness proved something of a handicap in evaluating stall and handling characteristics accu- rately. However, the stability of the aircraft appeared to be very satisfactory. Yaw tests indicated some lateral oscillation, although not of a serious nature.
-
the f6f is undermodeled.
:D
-
Continued
The stalling characteristics of the Hayate proved to be quite normal and stall warning occurred early enough to prevent a stall developing if recovery procedure was initiated promptly. In clean condition with power off at 8,000 ft (2440 m) the stall warning consisted of shudder and elevator buffet at 108 mph (174 km/h) IAS. The actual stall, which came at 102 mph ( 164 km/h), proved clean and the Hayate was stable with little tendency to drop off on a wing. and the ailerons and rudder remaining effective well below stalling speed. With the wheels and flaps down and the oil cooler shutters open, but the cowl flaps and canopy closed, the stall warning--occasionally accompanied by severe canopy buffet came at 92 mph ( 148 km/h) IAS and the actual stall occurred at 90 mph (145 km/h) with the nose dropping straight through. Again, there was no indication of instability.
With power on, undercarriage down and full flap, the Hayate did not stall. The rudder became inadequate below 81 mph(130 km/h) IAS and at this speed heading could be maintained
by use of full right rudder and right aileron. The ailerons became inadequate for maintaining altitude below 74 mph (119 km/h). the Hayate yawing left at this speed and then rolling with any further decrease in speed, but control was readily recovered by an increase in airspeed and a slight decrease in power.
Manoeuvrability was good; rolls, loops, Immelmanns and turns being executed with ease at normal speed, although well
co-ordinated manoeuvres proved somewhat difficult owing to the lack of in-flight aileron and rudder trimming. Handling on the approach and during landing was very good, with no undesirable characteristics or ground looping tendencies manifesting themselves, and vision, too, was good during the approach, although less than adequate after the flare was made. After extension of the undercarriage below 160 mph (257 km/h)and the application offull flap at 130 mph (209 kmh), a three-point landing could be satisfactorily executed (with elevator trim set for zero stick force) using speeds of 120 mph ( 193 km/h) over the fence and 110 mph (177 km/h) just off the runway, the actual touch-down being made at 92 mph ( 148 km/h). The Hayate landed easily. with all oleos soft, and was stable during the landing run which was pleasantly short. Crosswind landings could be made comfortably, but the brakes were relatively poor, although rather better than those encountered on the Ki.43-II Hayabusa.
General functioning
The Japanese instruments functioned well and appeared reliable with one or two noteworthy exceptions. The gyro turn indicator appeared to be binding inasmuch as only one-third needle width right or left was the maximum indication obtainable under any attitude or rate of turn; the caging knob was missing (or had been omitted) from the artificial horizon, making it impossible to cage the instrument for aerobatics or to erect the gyro after it had been upset--no gyro erection tendency was apparent in five minutes of level flight after up-setting, and the left fuel gauge consistently read lower than the right hand gauge although the fuel tanks theoretically fed evenly. Control friction was nominal on the ground, with no binding or roughness present, but interference between the auto mixture control and the stick became evident when an attempt was made to apply full left aileron when the mixture control was set normal.
The operation of the Nakajima Ha-45 18-cylinder radial was generally satisfactory throughout the series of flight tests, but while easy to start cold proved somewhat difficult when hot, the externally energized starter apparently having an insufficient torque rating. The engine ran somewhat roughly between 1,400 and 1,600 rpm and between 1,900 and 2,100 rpm, but the engine controls were smooth in operation with positive response. The engine control quadrant friction locks were unreliable, however, and rarely held the controls in fixed position, the auto mixture and supercharger controls creeping and the propeller control tending to vibrate at low rpm positions. Operation of the four-bladed electrically-controlled constant speed Pe-32 propeller was good, although it displayed a tendency to overspeed excessively unless extreme care was taken when power was being applied after a prolonged dive.
The hydraulic system usually worked smoothly but some difficulty was experienced with the hydraulically-operated undercarriage. On one flight, the mainwheels retracted only partway and on another retraction was completed but the up-locks would not engage. On both occasions repeating the cycle of operations appeared to clear the trouble. Prior to the delivery of this particular Hayate to Wright Field, the hydraulic pump had failed completely on one flight with the result that the wheels crept down. The auxiliary hand pump, which was connected to the reserve portion of the main hydraulic tank, worked well and its capacity was such that approximately 100 strokes were required to retract or extend the flaps, but its efficacy in so far as the undercarriage was concerned was not checked. In the event of a complete hydraulic fluid failure, the undercarriage could be unlocked manually and allowed to fall into place, the process being aided by yawing the aircraft until the indicator lights showed that the down-locks had engaged. One poor feature of the hydraulic system was the need to open and shut the by-pass. This had to be opened below 1,200 rpm to prevent the pump from overheating. The electrical system functioned well, with the exception of one instance of generator failure prior to take-off, but the location of the generator switch in the baggage compartment (which could not be reached by the pilot) was poor.
It was concluded from the test programme carried out at Wright Field that Hayate was essentially a good fighter which compared favourably with the P-sIH Mustang and the P-47N Thunderbolt. It could out-climb and out-mananuvre both USAAF fighters, turning inside them with ease, but both P-51H and P-47N enjoyed higher diving speeds and marginally higher top speeds. The light power loading and control forces of the Japanese fighter were to be admired, but it was not so well constructed as its US contemporaries, perhaps reflecting the slipping Japanese production standards at that stage of the war; it was obviously incapable of standing up so well as US fighters under continual usage and it was more demanding on maintenance. It revealed little effort on the part of its manufacturer to render its pilot's task easier or safer--it lacked fire extinguishers and means of emergency escape--but it was a sturdy little warplane and a very dangerous antagonist in fighter-versus-fighter high-g mananuvring combat when flown by a reasonably experienced pilot.
**Test info and data received from magazine AIR INTERNATIONAL, VOLUME 10, NUMBER 1, JANUARY 1976
-
Originally posted by busa
As compared with more heavily built with the same engine, the@small propeller has not offered the outstanding climbing performance.
By the way, I think this is right but wrong in a way. First off, The Gross weight of N1K2-J is 3800kg, Ki-84-Ia is 3600kg. The Ki-84-Ia is lighter. The propeller diameter is, N1K2-J 3.30m, Ki-84-Ia 3.00m. 30cm shorter than N1K2-J's one. But Ki-84 engineer chose shorter prop for reducing weight.
Also it's not an apt comparison though, The La-5FN has an outstanding climb performance with small propeller (3.00m/3-blade, it seems an inefficient prop on the surface). Although It's 300kg lighter than Ki-84 and it has the same power engine (1850hp).
Turn back to N1K2-J and Ki-84-Ia, The propeller efficiency is offset by weight and engine power. The important thing is choosing appropriate propeller to each aircraft. The Nakajima engineer did it, otherwise the climb performance of Frank would have been decreased in Army test, even in USA's test.
-
Wow, Busa... the combat trials quoted in the first link is quite shocking. It matches none of our previous concepts of what the Ki-84-Ia should be like.
What it DOES match however, is the often recited fact(or myth?) that the production Ki-84s were frequently plagued by engine malfunctions and could never achieve its full potential under ideal conditions - hence the derated engines.
I'm not sure what the source is, but I seem to recall pilot comments that goes, "even the Hayabusa is better than this!", or , "never ride a Ki-84 assembled in '45. They will fall apart during flight".
Now, this presents an interesting comparison with the La-5FN. The La-5FN we see in most combat sim games. The Soviet quality of aircraft construction has seen a steady increase in its quality by 1944, but before that many planes were known to be prone to malfunction or not reaching full potential, and there are numerous accounts of La-5FNs with much lower performance than expected(such as the Rechlin tests, or other quotes on limited WEP, lower max speed/deck speed, ventilation problems and etc etc..) So IIRC, it seems that there was never really a "standard set" of La-5FNs in the first place, at least not until 1944. The typical "La-5FN" one would epxect of late 1943, would be a mixed-up, jumbled version of upgraded La-5s and -5Fs that were as much plagued with numerous quality problems, and showing much lower performance numbers than the one depicted in AH.
IIRC, the "perfect", "ideal" La-5FN with full 10 minute emergency power and the currently listed speed, would not be seen until the La-7 came out - hence, the "La-5FN" we see may not be considered "typical" of La-5FNs but rather, more likely one of the last batch of La-5FNs.
What interests me is, if my view on this is correct, the chosen representation of the aircraft in the case of the La-5FN, is an ideal version without any quality problems, because the Soviets never went through the trouble of derating anything and hardly made any kind of such documents, whereas the chosen representation of the Ki-84, is a derated model(no WEP) with limited engine performance, because the Japanese had documented such facts.
In that sense, if the Ki-84 we see would be a "typical" Ki-84 in real life, then by that methodology a lot of planes in AH2 would also have to be "derated" if any such documents turn up. For instance our AH Spit5 with +16 boost would definately not be a typical 1941 version, (and if I understood Wotan correctly in past discussions) and the Bf109F-4 and G-2 and such, would also have to be derated to its "typical conditions".
What do you guys think?
-
I didn't think the +16 Boost Spit V was a good idea when it was first done. I didn't know about the Bf109F-4 and Bf109G-2 until I read Wotan's post about it.
What I would rather see is HTC simply reuse their art assets and give us more versions. Give us a Spitfire Mk Vb ('41) and a Spitfire Mk Vb ('42). Do the same with the Bf109F-4 and Bf109G-2. Take the 3D model of the Spitfire F.Mk IX and reuse it for a Spitfire LF.Mk IX, take the Bf109G-6 and use it for a Bf109G-14 model as well. Keep the originals, but copy the artwork over with a new name and new flight model.
Do this whereever they can get the data. More models means that there are more options in the MA and a lot better scenario and CT capabilities.
As to the Ki-84's reports, it is odd that Busa's Japanese report says the P-51 out turns the Ki-84 easily and the US test F4UDOA posted says the Ki-84 out turns the P-51H easily. Its like they're in an argument and saying the other guy's toy is better. Kinda like people arguing about a CT setup and who has the advantage.
-
Thank you for exact informations, F4UDOA .
We have a report of TAIC and others only for a few.
I want to know.
Is there any way we receive report of other Japanese planes?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I say about the reason for having exhibited Combat evaluation.
These are the impressions in Air combat which carried out engagement from the state which is not fixed.
The information for guessing the maximum performance of Ki84 and other airplanes may be included in these texts.
But it is not necessarily truth.
Probably, this information should not be quoted as it is especially about speed.
It is not thought that it had been flying at the maximum speed like AH.
Of course, F6F cannot be faster than P51.
And, of course, the turn performance of Ki84 is better than P51
I think it important what tactics both sides took.
And I think it important why such a result was reported.
I think that you will understand Ki84 more by investigating and guessing it.
And probably I think that the report brought about by this IJAAF is an unexpected result for many people.
The addition about Homare.
The engine indicated by documents was the same performance as Hmare12.
took the place of around February, 1944.
That is, all of mass-produced henceforth at the February, 1944 time were the same performances as Homare12.
differs from in a performance.
But the employment with these two same engine was applied.
However, it is unknown whether similarly it treated by IJAAF.
Since IJAAF did not plan to have adopted , it does not have data.
To Mitus
It is the following which I tried to say. .
The climb performance of Ki84 is not better than N1K2-J.
As for the climb performance of Ki84, it is good whether it is smaller than C6N (noDT).
(This is based on company data of Nakajima) .
It is clear that the cause's it is in a small propeller.
Thank you.
-
F4UDOA thank you for posting the test.
Is there any data to go along with the test such as giving the weights of each aircraft(Ki-84-I-KO, P-51H, P-47N), fuel loadouts, MP/RPM settings etc.?
I think that would give more credit to the report.
-
Did you check the plugs?
;)
QUOTE]Originally posted by Pyro
Crap, found the problem. It's not making full power. Argh. [/QUOTE] ;)
-
This is the part that I find baffling....
It was concluded from the test programme carried out at Wright Field that Hayate was essentially a good fighter which compared favourably with the P-sIH Mustang and the P-47N Thunderbolt. It could out-climb and out-mananuvre both USAAF fighters, turning inside them with ease, but both P-51H and P-47N enjoyed higher diving speeds and marginally higher top speeds
According to this the P-47N/P-51H just marginally faster????
-
Busa,
I have the A6M2 and A6M5 reports in full. I will post them, they are excellent reads.
I also have a small .JPG that list the performance of the Wright Pat test although I am not sure of it's origin or validity.
I will post shortly.
-
Thank you, F4UDOA.
And I have some questions.
Are (Ki84 pilot handbook)the things written before the report which you presented?
Do you have the comparison report of A6M5 and Seafire?
Is this report included in the report which compared A6M5 with FM2 and F6F and F4U?
Roll rate of A6M5 At the speed of 180 or less MPHs, I know that it was reported that it was the same as Seafire.
But it does not know whether it is written in more detail about roll rate by this report.
Is this report detail about the same as the report which compared A6M5 and US planes?
Supposing you have the information about these, please let me know.
Thank you.
-
Originally posted by humble
According to this the P-47N/P-51H just marginally faster????
Yeah, that is certainly strange. Especially when these fighters were 80 and 100 mph faster respectively than the standard in-service Ki-84.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
What do you guys think?
Add "Perfect" Ki-84-I-Otsu 1945 model with 4 20mm cannons/HA-45-21. :D
-
Busa,
Yes that is the report. I have both the A6M2 and A6M5 reports including the one done by the AAF with a P-38J, P-47D and P-51D.
The A6M5 used by the Navy was in better condition and was about 10 to 15MPH faster in the test.
Here is the first A6M2 test.
A6M2 (http://home.comcast.net/~markw4/A6M2.pdf)
Here is the AAF and Navy A6M5 test. They are in one PDF. It is from the TAIC.
A6M5 (http://home.comcast.net/~markw4/TAICzero.pdf)
Also here is a Gif file that is supposed to be from Wright field for the KI-84, I do not know it's origin or authenticity.
(http://home.comcast.net/~markw4/wright.gif)
Do you have any reports on other Japanese comparisons with American Navy A/C? Corsair or Hellcat?
-
Nice info F4UDOA...325mph to AH2 HAYATE!...1mph faster. :D
-
Widewing,
I am actually kind of begining to suspect that the numbers we have for things t\like the P-51D (437mph), Spitfire Mk XIV (448mph) and Bf109K-4 (452mph) are idealized numbers that were not what the aircraft in service actually did.
F4UDOA,
I think that is just hodgepodge data. The engine RPMs and HP don't match the speeds.
Mitsu,
AH's Ki-84 does 323mph at sea level and 384mph at 21,325ft.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
I didn't think the +16 Boost Spit V was a good idea when it was first done. I didn't know about the Bf109F-4 and Bf109G-2 until I read Wotan's post about it.
karnak can you post a link for the post?
-
I am actually kind of begining to suspect that the numbers we have for things t\like the P-51D (437mph), Spitfire Mk XIV (448mph) and Bf109K-4 (452mph) are idealized numbers that were not what the aircraft in service actually did.
It does bring out an interesting question, or rather, opens up a big can of worms :) Obviously all mechanic creations always has a certain margin of difference between ideal performance stats and actual performance stats.
It would seem such thorough investigation(?) on how 'crappy' Japanese and Soviet planes actually were, has given us much insight on "reality" of those planes in actual service, whereas one rarely thinks in that sense when mentioning US planes.
No, its not a conspiracy theory, just merely a tendency(and a natural one, too) which has settled upon the situation. (I wouldn't bother searching for the 'truth' if I was the winner)
It'd be interesting to see if there are any such thorough investigations on how big the "margin" would be for typical US planes, if such an investigation ever took place :)
Again, I do not consider it a conspiracy theory. If I were in HTC's shoes, with this set of data, I'd model planes this way, too. However, come to think of it I've always encountered arguments on 'actual performance' as opposed to 'ideal performance'.
Typically the Soviet planes most frequently meet these arguments, then the German and Japanese, and then the British. And yet, not one single argument have I seen that mentions how P-51 Merlin engines might not have used X amount of boost, or how P-47 speed may not have been Y amount of mph at Z alt... and etc etc. Did the US engines always use same amount of boost, no deration, no limitations, and always spot-on-the-manual-numbers?
Just interesting stuff to think about :D (or hold a grudge against :D :D :D )
-
I've heard accounts from US WW2 pilots that their planes were slower than published specs.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Mitsu,
AH's Ki-84 does 323mph at sea level and 384mph at 21,325ft.
It's not still fixed?
-
Flyboy,
I don't remember which post it was in. If I recall correctly it was in the CT forum and was spawned by Axis players complaining about the "overmodeled" Spitfire Mk V.
Mitsu,
No, it is fixed. Very few aircraft in AH actually hit the number Pyro was aimimg for exactly. the Ki-84 is less than one third of a percent off it's intended speed at sea level. That is a tiny franction for a simulation. It is off by a bit more than one percent at higher altitude.
If you test other aircraft you'll find the same kinds of things. The Spitfire Mk XIV for example only hits 446mph, not 448mph.
-
So if not the Frank or the George, what was the fastest single-engine, prop fighter for the IJ during the war?
mauser
-
I believe it was the Frank. Whether or not it exceeded 400 mph, I don't think the Japanese produced a faster single engine aircraft that saw combat.
-
While produced in small numbers, I think the J2M5 Raiden would be what comes next in the speed category...
(http://hsgalleries.com/images/raidensw_title.jpg)
* Mitsubishi MK4U-4 Kasei 26a 14-cylinder radial air-cooled engine rated at 1820 hp for takeoff
*Maximum speed 382 mph at 22,310 feet
* Normal cruising speed 230 mph
*Altitude of 19,685 feet could be reached in 6 minutes 20 seconds
*Two 20-mm Type 99 Model 1 cannon and two 20-mm Type 99 Model 2 cannon with 200 rpg
-
how many j2m5s where made?
-
Total production of all J2M variants was 476 +/- a few, or in other words, similar to the Niki and the C.205.
3 J2M1 prototypes
155 J2M2 production aircraft
260 J2M3 production aircraft
21 J2M3a production aircraft
2 J2M4 prototypes
34 J2M5 production aircraft
1 J2M6 production aircraft
If we can have the Niki and the 205, I dont see (provided Pyro can find the flight data he needs) why we shouldnt have the Jack too.
-
Thank you, F4UDOA
The reports which I have are as follows.
TAIC No.17&No.38 and INTERMIM REPORT NO.2 Project No.NAD-25 have an original thing.
In addition, since it was translated, the report may be summarized.
There are three data about A6M2.
One is a report of a control system of A6M2 called the preparation-report of Type00 pursuit plane.
However, I do not know the title of English original.
Another is Cracking the ZERO mystery of James Reardon writing.
And there is a comparison report with SaeFire.
The report of KI84 is summarized and the whole sentence is not introduced.
INTERMIM REPORT NO.2 Project No.NAD-25 were this time very useful data.
And I have just been going to translate in order to utilize the precious data which you gave.
Although the report of J2M is comparatively detailed, it thinks that a few is omitted by it.
I am looking for the report of original of this.
It is because it is thought only J2M that there is a detailed report by fighter other than A6M and Ki84.
If there is a report detailed otherwise, they will be the big profits for us.
And it has Japanese aircraft TAIC manual of Planes of Fame issue.
But since the data obtained by espionage are contained, this data is not practical.
Since it must verify in case this book is quoted, it is inconvenience.
I do not understand this book for why the data which are not the newest were edited.
The maximum performance of C6N, Ki44,N1K1-J and other airplanes which TAIC measured, is also introduced to others in Japan.
If these data are right, the maximum speed of the airplanes which installed Homare of TAIC measurement is reported as follows.
Ki84 427MPH.
C6N 430MPH.
N1K1-J 416MPH.
Incidentally, in the state of MP+350RPM3000, the flight engineer of Nakajima controlled engine and C6N recorded the maximum speed of 393MPH.
C6N carried out first flight and performance measurement, when almost the same as Ki84.
I think that this measurement value precisely controlled by the engineer of Nakajima serves as a standard which guesses the performance of Homare.
And C6N recorded the official maximum speed of 378MPH in the state of MP+250RPM2900 after that.
I think it clear what to be required for Ki84 to record 409MPH and 427MPH.
I think that it is the same as what IJNAF gave to C6N and N1K2-J for the emergency or the special situation.
I do not have the authority to give them to Ki84 and N1K2-J in AH.
I can only do reporting those facts.
Thank you.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
If you test other aircraft you'll find the same kinds of things. The Spitfire Mk XIV for example only hits 446mph, not 448mph.
Yes, but that falls into the normal deviation. One ill-fitting panel can make a substantial difference in drag. Whether or not the ground crew keeps the aircraft clean, fills gaps with filler and waxes the aircraft are all factors that can have a cumulative effect on maximum speed. Waxed, unpainted P-51s were routinely faster than dirty, greasy, fully painted Mustangs, sometimes by 5-10 mph.
We also must not overlook the state of engine tune. Some mechanics were more careful or skilled than others. There are a great many variables that cannot be accounted for in a game. Minor deviations in speed from actual test data should be expected.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Widewing,
That was kinda my point. I was just using the Spitfire Mk XIV as a comparison to the Ki-84 in AH because I knew it's AH number vs. it's "official" number.
I was simply pointing out to Mitsu that the Ki-84 was hitting its numbers.
Though I wound't have complained if they'd been hitting them high instead of low.;)
-
Waxed, unpainted P-51s were routinely faster than dirty, greasy, fully painted Mustangs, sometimes by 5-10 mph.
The RAF tested a Mustang III (P-51B) as a V-1 chaser. It was pulled out of squadron service. They stripped and repainted the leading 2 ft of the wing, rubbed down the rest of the aircraft, and got a 12 mph speed increase as a result.